Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Drug-related Crime

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to reduce drug-related crime.

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce drug-related crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The Government are committed to tackling every aspect of the problem of drug misuse, including that of drug-related crime. Key elements in the overall strategy include increasing the effectiveness of enforcement, developing prevention publicity and education, and improving the treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister concerned about the easy availability of drugs in prison, as evidenced by Judge Stephen Tummy's report on the privatised Wolds prison? Has the Minister seen the extraordinary report in The Times today which shows that prisoners are receiving dole payments and other benefits in prison which could conceivably be used to finance their drug habits? Is not it a national scandal that Ministers have known about it for six years but have done precisely nothing? Is it not another example of the Minister being all mouth and no action?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman paid attention to what was happening in the House, he would know that we have tabled a amendment, dealing with drug testing of prisoners, to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is currently in Committee. It is the Government's policy that prisoners shall not have access to drugs. I hope that the Opposition will support the measure as fully as the hon. Gentleman says that he will.

Mr. Byers: Following the drug-related shooting of two police officers in Brixton last night and the murder in Gates head of North Umbria police officer Bill Forth, does the Minister agree that the greatest social menace facing our country is the expanding drug misuse among young people? Will the Government now adopt a comprehensive strategy to tackle the escalating problem and, in particular, stop the reduction in the number of drug education officers, and employ more customs officers?

Mr. Maclean: Of course we agree that it is one of the greatest social evils facing us. That is why we have such a comprehensive strategy; that is why we have the Home Office drugs prevention initiative; that is why we have the safer cities programme; that is why we have the toughest penalties in Europe for dealing with drug traffickers and why we have the powers to take their ill-gotten gains from them; that is why we have effective customs action and why drug education is included in the national curriculum. It is all there; it is about time that the Labour party stopped telling us that we should have a strategy and supported the strategy that the Government have.

Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend join me in extending to the Metropolitan police the congratulations of the whole House on the way in which they are tackling drug-related crime in the metropolis? Will he ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to extend the deepest sympathies of all hon. Members to the two officers who were seriously injured in the shooting last night? What equipment was available to those officers and others on the streets of Brixton and elsewhere to protect them from the shootings and stabbings which they encounter daily while doing their duty on our behalf?

Mr. Maclean: The whole House will wish to pay tribute to PCs Simon Carroll and James Seymour, the two officers shot last night while on duty. They are two officers in a long line of thousands of police officers across the country who, every day of the week, make themselves vulnerable in carrying out their duty, for which we are all grateful. I understand that their injuries are not life threatening—one will undergo an operation this afternoon. I shall gladly pass on the comments of the whole House to those officers.
The protective equipment available to officers is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I shall of course draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to give way to the calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the only effect would be to get more children into the habit of taking that level of drug and that it would not be long before traffickers suggested that they get more of a kick by taking heroin or cocaine? Would not the result be an increased demand for hard drugs, which could lead only to more crimes being committed? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say no yet again to all calls to decriminalise drugs?

Mr. Maclean: Absolutely. As I said, the Government have the most draconian penalties in Europe to deal with those who traffic in the more serious drugs—crack, heroin and cocaine. We should be sending out a cloudy message if we were to suggest that not only cannabis but category B and C drugs—we have recently uprated the penalties for


them; they had not been uprated since 1977—did not matter or that taking drugs did not count. Taking any drug is harmful, those included.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the biggest link between drug taking and the use of another drug is the use of alcohol? Is he saying that he is going to ban alcohol?

Mr. Maclean: I shall treat that remark with the contempt that it deserves.

Basil don

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his visit to Basil don last year.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I visited Basil don on Saturday 20 November last year, when I visited Basil don police station and also attended a large and extremely enthusiastic meeting of my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Amess: Following the highly successful visit of my right hon. and learned Friend to Basildon, will he tell the House what progress has been made on the 27 points contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill? Will he join me in congratulating Basildon police, whom he has met, on their increased detection rate and on their efforts to unite the community in the fight against crime? Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that, following the launch of my road show and meet the people campaign, the six yobs whom I accosted on Saturday after complaints from local residents, would be taken to a centre of detention—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in the middle of debate. I want a question for the Minister so that he can give a direct answer.

Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such adolescents who are out of control should be taken to secure centres if their parents are not prepared to accept the responsibility for their behaviour?

Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. Secure training units are essential if we are to bring persistent young offenders under control. I congratulate Basildon police on the substantial increase in their detection rate. Progress on the implementation of my 27-point programme is excellent.

Mr. Mackinlay: What measures does the Home Secretary intend to take to lift the low morale of police officers in Basildon and throughout the county of Essex which has been conveyed to him by their Police Federation?

Mr. Howard: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the basis of my encounter with the police in Basildon, to which I referred in answer to my hon. Friend. When I met the police in Basildon, morale was excellent and they were looking forward to continuing the excellent progress that they have made in increasing their detection rate.

Mr. Blair: Does the Home Secretary agree that in Basildon, as elsewhere, the battle against crime simply cannot be won unless we fight drugs and drug abuse? Will

he undertake now, as a matter of urgency, to wake up to the seriousness of that situation and combine measures—[Interruption.]Drugs and drug-related crime is a serious issue. Will he wake up to the seriousness of that issue and combine measures that drive the drug dealers off our streets with measures that educate and teach our young people of the dangers of drug abuse?

Mr. Howard: Yes, of course I shall do that. Of course, drug misuse is a very serious matter. Of course, it plays an important part in crime. Of course, we must take it seriously. However, when we consider what the hon. Gentleman says, we find, as so often, that his words are long, but his action is extremely short. He made a long speech on drugs recently in which, at the end, we found a piffling three paragraphs on Labour strategy, most of which relates to things that we are already doing.

Life Sentences

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received that for particular categories of murder a life sentence should mean life.

Mr. Maclean: I have received a number of representations to that effect. Under the present arrangements, those convicted of the worst sorts of murder will normally serve a minimum of 20 years in prison. Some will serve longer and some may never be released. A life sentence is a sentence for life, because those released are released on licence and can be recalled to prison at any time.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the public overwhelmingly want the restoration of capital punishment, it is now abundantly clear that Parliament will always deny them that? If Parliament is not to be brought into disrepute, must not we come up with something that matches the gravity of those aspirations? Will my right hon. and hon. Friends at least consider the proposition that, for those who commit the most serious forms of murder, that of police officers and prison officers, life sentences should really mean life until death?

Mr. Maclean: We have those powers already, and for some people that is exactly what life will mean. The option is not limited to those who kill police and prison officers. No one who receives a mandatory life sentence should expect that to mean eight, 10 or 12 years. The sentence served could be very long indeed. For the most heinous killers, it will be a minimum of 20 years and some will probably never be released.

Mr. Trimble: The Minister referred to his policy that the murderers of policemen and prison officers should serve at least 20 years in prison. Why does not that policy apply throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Maclean: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would object if Home Office Ministers sought to impose policies on Northern Ireland without the consideration of the members of the Government responsible for policy there.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fact that people serving life sentences for murder emerge from


custody after 12 years, and that people serving sentences for offences such as burglary also come out long before they have served the nominal sentence imposed, brings the law into disrepute and makes people more likely to offend?

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there are systems of parole whereby some people may be released before they have served their full sentence, but it is wrong for my hon. Friend to suggest that in all cases of murder the offender will serve about 12 years. The advantage of the mandatory life sentence for murder, with discretionary release at the end, is that it can cover a great many gradations of murder. Some people will serve shorter sentences, but I repeat that some people who are sentenced for murder may never be released.

Police And Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]

Mr. Ainger:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on his proposals set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords].

Mr. Howard: I have received about 250 representations from organisations, members of the public and hon. Members since the Bill was published on 17 December.

Mr. Ainger: As the Home Secretary is aware that Dyfed-Powys police and Gwent police are the most successful forces in terms of clear-up rate, will he do another U-turn, or another climbdown, on the provisions in the Bill for ending or amalgamating police forces, especially as such action would be against the wishes of local people and of the local police authority?

Mr. Howard: I do not need to change the Bill to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal. The Bill merely changes the procedures for amalgamations and I have made it clear that I have no hidden agenda of compulsory amalgamations. I congratulate the police of Dyfed-Powys on their excellent results, including most impressive crime clear-up rates and the award of a chartermark.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if he had the power to appoint an accountant to the South Wales police authority, the authority might have been able to discover somewhat earlier that it had made a £3 million mistake in its adding up?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's point is extremely persuasive and it is a matter for great regret that the South Wales police authority has been responsible for such large mistakes. Of course, there is a place, and there will be a place on the new police authorities, for local and independent members who do not happen to be councillors or magistrates. I hope that they will make an effective contribution to the working of those authorities.

Mr. Michael: If the Home Secretary has no hidden agenda for merging police forces—unlike his predecessor, who offered a threat to 39 of our 43 police forces—will he withdraw the power that he seeks in the Bill to merge police forces without being restrained by the wishes of local people?

Mr. Howard: The procedures, for which provision is made in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, make proper provision for giving full weight to the views and

wishes of local people. What they change are the extremely cumbersome procedures that have been in place until now, which are long, expensive and unnecessary.

Police Bail

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to give the police a new power of arrest for breach of police bail.

Mr. Howard: A provision to create such a power is contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill as part of our package of measures to cut down the abuse of bail. It has been widely welcomed by the police.

Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Clwyd, North-West there is wide support for the fight against crime? Has he received any support for his proposals to crack down on bail bandits from the Labour party, especially the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

Mr. Howard: No, I am sorry to say that a number of amendments were tabled in Standing Committee that would make it much more difficult for the courts to refuse bail. Each year, some 50,000 offences are committed by people while on bail. The proposals that we have included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill are designed to deal with that mischief.

Mr. Bennett: If the Home Secretary is so keen to increase the number of people in prison as a result of such actions, where will he find the space for them? Is he aware that, following the Strangeways incident, during the whole of Operation Container in Greater Manchester, the police were reluctant to arrest people for breaches of bail because they did not have anywhere to put them? If the Home Secretary is to carry out the proposals—the police cells in Manchester are overcrowded now—what steps will he take to find somewhere to put people when they are arrested?

Mr. Howard: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are progressively increasing prison capacity in the north-west. The new Manchester prison is already open and taking an increasing number of prisoners all the time. We have plans to ensure that further increases are made to the prison estate in the north-west.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with a lady in my county whose daughter was murdered by a suspect who was out on bail for a string of serious sexual offences? She wrote to me saying that she wanted the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to be implemented as soon as possible. If they had been implemented, her daughter would be alive today. Are not the amendments tabled by Labour Members to weaken the provisions—which are wanted by the public and would be effective on those criminals—further evidence that they are soft on law and order?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds the House that behind the charges and countercharges that are exchanged across the Chamber lie real human tragedies with which we are trying to deal as effectively as we can in the proposals that we put before Parliament. It is a matter of deep regret that we do not get the support of the Labour party for those proposals.

Crime, London

Mr. Austin-Walker:: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce crime in London.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Metropolitan police strength has increased by 22 per cent. since the Government took office and successful local partnerships have been formed throughout the capital in a co-ordinated effort to tackle crime.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Has the Minister seen the recent studies carried out by the Association of London Authorities which show that more than 50 per cent. of Londoners indicated fear of crime as their major concern and more than two thirds of Londoners expect the situation to get worse? Does he agree that his tough words have not been matched by action? What will he do to restore the morale and confidence of the Metropolitan police, who are unable to respond to the needs of their communities?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that in the Plumstead division, which covers his constituency, burglary was down 11 per cent. last year. He will know that in the year to June 1993, recorded crime was down fractionally for the Metropolitan police district. He will know that 15,000 fewer houses were burgled last year. He will be aware of the wide variety of crime prevention measures throughout the Metropolitan police district. For example, in Southall, Ealing, Wandsworth, Westminster, Hounslow, Croydon, Brent and Sutton crime prevention is at work, and most effectively.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many crimes in London are committed by boys and girls under the age of 16 who commit a multitude of crimes and historically have not been put in secure units? Does he agree that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill will address that problem?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why persistent juvenile offenders will be given secure training orders by means of the Bill's provisions.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister will be aware that 40 per cent. of racial incidents recorded by the police occur in the Metropolitan police area and that few of those responsible for those crimes can be arrested, and even fewer convicted, under the present law. Will the hon. Gentleman join the Opposition in recognising that the law needs to be strengthened in relation to racial incidents? Will he give a clear commitment this afternoon that he and the Home Secretary will support the Bill on racial hatred and violence which is being brought to the House tomorrow by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)?

Mr. Wardle: The House will know that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the Select Committee proposals, for which he is waiting. The House will also be aware that the Government support police efforts to tackle racial crime. We are encouraging reporting and the increase in the number of reported incidents may well be a result of that encouragement. There has been fresh training and multi-agency guidance on that most important problem.

Police Accountability

Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the police more accountable to the local community.

Mr. Howard: The Police and Magistrates' Court Bill will establish strong independent local police authorities and a clear framework for setting priorities and measuring performance. Local people will be better informed about what their local force is trying to achieve and how well it is doing.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have enjoyed immense benefit from our tradition of policing by consent? That consent has been in important measure established and expressed through locally controlled watch committees, historically and by police authorities in more recent times. Will he therefore continue to seek the fullest measure of local accountability for police forces, consistent with efficiency and with appropriate operational independence?

Mr. Howard: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. One of the new responsibilities of local police authorities will be that of preparing a strategy for a local partnership between the police and the public. Unless we can strengthen such partnerships, we shall never make real progress in the fight against crime. I agree with my hon. Friend that policing by consent is an essential element in that partnership.

Mr. Maginnis: Has the Secretary of State received any reports on the effect that the anti-terrorist cordons in London have had on the level of ordinary crime in the area? What lessons are to be learnt from that and has the community been informed of the benefits?

Mr. Howard: I understand that crime has been reduced in the area in which the measures are in force and the City of London Corporation is assiduous in bringing the results to the attention of those who live and work in the City. The future of the scheme is under review and certain procedures must be satisfied. I think that that is the answer that the hon. Gentleman wanted.

Sir Anthony Grant: Would not it be a good idea to make local authorities more accountable to the police? In Cambridgeshire, for example, the Lib-Lab coalition regime has flatly refused to apply to the police the £1.2 million that has been made available to it for that purpose.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As usual, there is a complete contrast between the words from those on the Opposition Front Bench and the deeds of Labour local authorities which, up and down the country, refuse to give the police money that the Government have made available for policing purposes.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary accept my congratulations on scrapping, in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill currently in the House of Lords, almost all the proposals made in the White Paper that would have eroded the local accountability of police? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to look so objectively at Home Office matters in future, he will command more support than he has done up to date.

Mr. Howard: I do not wish to sound in the slightest churlish in reply to the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, but they seem to have been offered under a misapprehension. The changes that have been made to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill are changes of detail. The principles are intact and they will deliver us the objectives that we have always sought to achieve.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take account of the concern of many police forces that they are unable to deal with noisy neighbours who cause great anxiety to people by disturbing them with parties all night, noisy radios and televisions, and the rest of it? Will he seek powers to enable the police to deal with that disturbing and annoying problem?

Mr. Howard: A range of powers are available at present. They are mostly local authority and civil law powers. They are not used as effectively as they should be. I should be happy to have a word with my hon. Friend about the matter.

Mr. Allen: Now that the Home Secretary has been forced to back down on some of the more ridiculous and wasteful proposals on police accountability, does he accept that, rather than pressing ahead with the rest of his package, it would be far better to put the money available into boosting the pathetic 76p per family per year that the Conservatives spend on crime prevention? The police and local communities do not want well-established relation-ships tampered with. They want to know when the Conservatives will get serious about crime prevention.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's figures are absurd. Apart from the £200 million a year that we spend across Whitehall on crime prevention, the police spend a substantial part of their £6 billion-a-year budget on crime prevention. We take crime prevention extremely seriously. Contrary to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, the Bill that is at present in the other place will make a substantial contribution to crime prevention.

Crime, London

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from the London SW1 postal district about the relationship between law enforcement and rising crime.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Records of representations are not kept by postal district.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree with the gracious Queen of Belize, who is normally resident in SW1, who recently said that increasing levels of crime—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Lady that we do not invoke the name of the Queen in debate. Can she rephrase her—[Interruption.] The Queen of Belize is also a member of a royal family.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by a well-known resident of SW1 that increased crime prevention will not solve rising crime levels unless it is accompanied by a look at the root causes of the disease?

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that recorded crime in London SW1 has dropped by 8 per cent. in the past two years. As for the

reasons for crime, the hon. Lady will also be pleased to hear that sub-groups of the National Board for Crime Prevention are examining precisely those matters. One in particular that will command increasing attention is the problem of repeat victimisation.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crime issues in SW1 is terrorism? Would he care to pay tribute to the police who have protected us in SW1 in recent years? Has he received any message from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to the effect that he is now prepared to fight for the measures that the police want to fight terrorism—the emergency powers legislation that we passed last night, particularly in the light of the Heathrow bombing incident?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pattern of voting in the House yesterday will undoubtedly command wide attention. As for the terrorist action, the terrorists achieved nothing yesterday and they will achieve nothing other than futile suffering.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister tell the people of SW1 whether tomorrow the Government will support or oppose the Bill being sponsored by his hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth)?

Mr. Wardle: As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government will consider the response of the Select Committee in due course.

Offenders (Bail)

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to deal with those people who offend while on bail.

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to deal with those people who commit crimes while on bail.

Mr. Howard: We are introducing in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a series of measures designed to tackle the problem of offending on bail and to improve the bail system more generally.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that most people in the country are fed up with reading about people who offend and commit other crime while out on bail, and they want the Government to take tough action, so they will be grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend proposes? However, what would be the consequences if the courts were required to consider the defendant's health before recommending putting the defendant in custody? The Labour party believes that that would be a good thing. Many Conservative Members are fearful that fewer people in custody means more trouble for people on the streets of our country.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The amendment to which he refers is but one of a number tabled by the Labour party which would restrict the powers of the court to refuse bail. It is a remarkable fact that, of those people arrested in the course of the remarkably successful Operation Bumblebee, which has done so much to reduce burglary in London, no fewer than 40 per cent.


were on bail. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. That is why we are taking new powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important steps that we have taken is in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which made offending on bail an aggravating factor when passing sentence? Does he further agree with the cab driver who brought me back to the House this afternoon, who said that, as a result of the Labour party's inability to support the Government on law and order measures, the least convincing Member of the House, in his view, was the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?

Mr. Howard: Out of the mouths of cab drivers comes wisdom of a very high order and I would be the last person to disagree with it.

Crime

Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with local authorities in the north-west regarding measures to reduce crime.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Home Office officials frequently discuss such measures with representatives of a number of key agencies in the north-west, including local authorities.

Ms Lynne: Has the Secretary of State any plans to speak to members of Rochdale council to explain to them the cut in the safer cities grant? Does he intend to take the opportunity of congratulating Rochdale council on finding the money to keep the scheme going, and also to provide extra funding for special constables to patrol areas on Rochdale estates?

Mr. Wardle: The hon. Lady knows that the safer cities project in Rochdale was for a four-year term, and that it was intended that a local partnership should take the project on after that four-year term. That has been the pattern with the first 20 projects in phase 1 of our safer cities programme. It is working effectively in Rochdale, and the metropolitan borough council will have a close involvement in the continued partnership. Two safer cities project staff will be seconded from the Home Office to guide it.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend understand that many people in the north-west would like prisoners who are sentenced to five years actually to serve five years—cutting out all the remission, rehabilitation, and parole—and, if they misbehave, to be given extra years? Then we shall get to grips with law and order.

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes his point most effectively. He will also be mindful of the fact that since the Criminal Justice Act 1991, prisoners will be serving more of the sentences given to them by the courts.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister inquire into the case this week in which a firearm that was used in a heinous crime in Greater Manchester was returned to its rightful owner? I have mentioned the subject in the House on a number of occasions since eight legally held firearms were stolen about two years ago, three of which have now been responsible for three murders and two serious woundings.

There seems to me to be a case for a fresh examination of what happens to those firearms when they have been recovered.

Mr. Wardle: The firearm was stolen. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it was stolen two or three years ago. Obviously, the House will share the regret at the tragic deaths and serious injuries that stolen firearms have caused. However, the chief constable of Greater Manchester satisfied himself that their owner had the proper certificate and had kept them in a proper and secure place and that they should be returned to him.

Squatting

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has in respect of squatting; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains provisions that will reinforce a new civil procedure for removing squatters from premises. In addition, I have tabled amendments to the Bill which will increase the protection given by the Criminal Law Act 1977 to displaced residential occupiers and protect intending occupiers of property that is unlawfully occupied.

Mr. Dunn: What opposition has the Minister encountered to changes in the law on squatting and how does he intend to overcome it?

Mr. Maclean: The welcome from the Opposition was less than enthusiastic and wholehearted, as we might have expected.

Madam Speaker: Order. Just a word of caution, which I have uttered before. Committees of the House are autonomous. They do their work upstairs, and only when the results of their deliberations are reported to the House are these matters discussed on the Floor. I remind Back Benchers of that, but it seems that Ministers, too, need occasional reminding.

Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister really believe that his proposal to allow landlords to use violence for the purpose of evicting people will aid law and order? Will he accept responsibility when someone, whether a bailiff, a squatter or a tenant being illegally evicted, is seriously injured or killed as a direct result of his legislation?

Mr. Maclean: The House will find it quite unacceptable that, at present, a person whose house has been stolen by squatters cannot even break the window of the back door to get into his own premises, as such action is considered to be violence. That is nonsense, which we are removing.

Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in tackling squatting, prevention is better than cure? Is not it the case that inept, inefficient and incompetent Labour authorities up and down the country are sitting on tens of thousands of empty council houses and that if those houses were made available to tenants they would not be available for squatting?

Mr. Maclean: That is certainly the case, but it is not acceptable that, just because of some incompetent Labour


authorities that have thousands of empty properties, other people whose houses are taken over should not have a right to get them back.

Drug-related Crime

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department is taking to tackle drug-related crime.

Mr. Maclean: I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given earlier today to the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers).

Mr. Milburn: How can the Government possibly justify cutting funding for drugs education when, currently, just four in 10 school children have access to that vital advice? Why does not the Minister realise that being tough on law and order means taking action to prevent crime as well as imposing stiffer sentences?

Mr. Maclean: In the replies to questions Nos. 1 and 4 I laid out the elements of the Government's prevention strategy, a great deal of which is concerned with crime prevention. Last week, the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a speech entitled "Drugs: the need for action"�ž four pages of waffle against the Government, with three miserable paragraphs at the end. How much money will the hon. Gentleman spend? The last of the big spenders would provide £4 million to deal with the drugs problem. We spend £4 million every three days. But the hon. Gentleman will not be allowed even to keep his £4 million promise, as his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will say that he did not make the promise of the Floor of the House.

Sir Peter Fry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the estimated level of drug-related crime is now so high that it makes nonsense of the complaint from Labour Members that crime is a result of unemployment or social deprivation? Does he agree that drugs constitute the main factor driving the crime figures up?

Mr. Maclean: Of course there is drug-related crime. No one seeks to deny or exaggerate that. The important point is that we have the strategy for dealing with it at all levels through the drugs prevention initiative; massive spending on the safer cities programme; the toughest penalties in Europe; tough action by the police and customs; drugs education in the national curriculum; and all the other action that the Government are taking. Those add up to more than £500 million a year worth of action on all aspects of the fight against drugs.

Bail Hostels

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the provision of bail hostels in the west midlands.

Mr. Maclean: The Government continue to support the provision of approved bail and probation hostels in the west midlands, as elsewhere, where those meet the needs of sentencers in a cost-effective way and within the requirements of national standards.

Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree that people outside this place will find it absolutely incredible that

Conservative Members have been complaining about people being released on bail when, in the west midlands, it is proposed to close two much-needed bail hostels and save £200,000, thus depriving the courts of the ability to choose appropriate accommodation for people who need it?

Mr. Maclean: What people will find extraordinary is that the west midlands has nine bail hostels. If the hon. Gentleman had told me that those were at 100 per cent. capacity I should be more concerned about his point. If we remove the two smallest hostels, we would remove only 15 per cent. of capacity. Given that there is at least 20 per cent. surplus capacity, the hon. Gentleman has not a leg to stand on.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McFall: Now that the Minister for open government has given an entirely new meaning to the phrase, "lying in state", does the Prime Minister agree that the democratic process is undermined if Ministers imply that concealing the truth from the House is acceptable? Does he accept that it is a lie that the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, ever lied to this House? If so, will he apologise to the former distinguished Prime Minister for that slur?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may regret, on reflection, the way in which he phrased his question—[Interruption] If hon. Members do not regret it, I believe that they should. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is not the case now, nor has it been in the past, that Ministers willingly mislead this House, and no one has suggested that that is the case.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that, last night, the IRA launched yet another vicious terrorist attack endangering the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians, were not the Opposition, at exactly same time, voting against the very measure which our security forces need to combat this evil? Are not the Opposition soft on terrorism and soft on crime?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the attack that was launched yesterday on Heathrow airport by the IRA will receive and deserve universal condemnation. It was an unjustifiable attack and will make no difference whatever to the search for peace in Northern Ireland. But I believe that it should lead to every part of this House uniting on firm action against terrorism.

Mr. John Smith: With the issue of Ministers telling the truth now a matter of public debate, does the Prime Minister appreciate that what most undermines the credibility of his Administration is the blatant deception practised at the last election when the Conservative party promised to cut taxes? Since then, they have imposed the largest tax increase in Britain's peacetime history.

The Prime Minister: I shall turn directly to that point, but I must say that I am extremely surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should pursue that matter on the day after a mortar attack at Heathrow and on the very day on which the Cabinet has been considering sending more troops to Bosnia to deal with an international problem. [interruption.] have made the point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that these things do not matter. I think that people throughout the country will take a different view. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

The Prime Minister: On the specific point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taxation rose precisely because we kept our promises to protect the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick through the long recession. The recession lasted longer than we or other forecasters had imagined, and in order to sustain policy and bring down interest rates it was necessary to close borrowing. That was a responsible attitude. It was the right attitude. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman understood the first thing about economics, he would support it, not attack it.

Mr. John Smith: To come very directly to the point, does the Prime Minister deny that before the election he promised to cut taxes and he is now putting them up?

The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why it was necessary to raise taxation, although we had hoped not to do so. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to consider taxes, he might look at the more recent figures of council taxes which show clearly how much more expensive Labour authorities and Liberal authorities are than Conservative authorities. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would comment on that.

Mr. John Smith: Having regard to the Prime Minister's feeble excuse for breaking his promise at the election, does he not remember telling the Los Angeles Times in his celebrated interview last year:
I said [to colleagues] the day after we won the election … 'Within the next 12 months the government will be the most unpopular we have seen for a long time.'
He went on to say, "I was staggeringly prescient." Will the Prime Minister explain how he could know about the state of the economy the day after the election but not know before polling day?

The Prime Minister: I shall go back further than that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I made it absolutely clear on the day that I became Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would take whatever action was necessary to restrain inflation and put the economy on secure and steady growth. We have done that, including maintaining monetary policy with interest rates at a high level right through the election, because it was in the

interests of the British economy to do so. That is responsible government. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand that.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Lady Olga Maitland: With the council elections approaching, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that what council tax payers want are efficient services at the lowest possible cost? Does he agree that it is the Conservative councils who deliver this, not the Labour councils and not the Liberal councils, such as the one that I have in Surrey?

The Prime Minister: I not only agree with my hon. Friend; it is what the statistics now becoming available on council tax charges show. At present, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning announced yesterday, Conservative councils that have now declared their council taxes come out, on average, at £129 less than Labour councils and £73 less than Liberal councils. It is clear who costs one more in the shires— it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in the mets— it is Labour. It is clear who costs one more in London— it is Labour. No matter where one looks, Labour councils and— so as not to disappoint the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)— Liberal councils, cost one more.

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr.Marshall: Is the Prime Minister aware that his recent morale-boosting visit to Scotland has resulted in his party achieving a record low in the polls of 13 per cent? Does he appreciate why the Scots are once more uttering the refrain:
Will ye no' come back again"—
and again, and again?

The Prime Minister: As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is typically inaccurate. The data were before I visited Scotland.

Ministerial Visits

Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Imperial War museum at Duxford.

The Prime Minister: I know from private visits what a magnificent place the Duxford museum is. I can well understand the pride of my right hon. Friend in having it in his constituency. I hope that I may be able to pay an official visit at some time in the future.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend note that the United States air force flew from Duxford during the last war with much loss of life and, in particular, flew on the D-day operation? Will he give his support to the American air museum being created there, either by


visiting Duxford or by inviting the Americans concerned to visit him? It would be extremely good for Anglo-American relations.

The Prime Minister: I should like to visit Duxford again. I shall take an opportunity to do so and to look at the museum's plans. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the significant contribution of the US air force to the D-day landings. We have a continual debt of gratitude to them. It is right that we should celebrate the 50th anniversary and remember the heroism of the troops and the sacrifices that they made so that we can enjoy the liberties that we exercise in the House.

Health Issues

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devotes to health issues.

The Prime Minister: A lot.

Mr. Hughes: In that case, given that one of the most obvious implications of the Government's policies for health services in London is that they plan to run down the hospital that the Prime Minister described as the flagship, and that the main building— a state of the art building costing £140 million— will never come into use, in all seriousness will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State take a little extra time to listen to a proposal that keeps both Guy's and St. Thomas's as hospitals, saves the taxpayer money, reduces embarrassment and, above all, saves patients' lives?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the changes to the health service in London are long overdue; they have been long sought by many people. We have won support inside and outside the health service for tackling that particular problem, not least from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. As for the problems of Guy's and St. Thomas's, the hon. Gentleman will know that the clinicians at both hospitals believe that patient care will be improved by concentrating services on one site, not two. It is not just the Government's view, but that of the doctors involved. Thanks to the determination to embrace change, the Guy's and St Thomas's trust will have a secure future and its buildings, old and new, will be used fully, effectively and appropriately in the best interests of patients, medical teaching and research.

Engagements

Mr.Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in my constituency and throughout the country about the activities of television cable-laying

companies? Pavements are uprooted, roads closed and businesses disrupted all with the objective of getting doubtful television programmes into our homes. Is it not time that we found a better way of organising these matters?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend. Of course it is important that all those with the right to undertake street works should keep disruption to a minimum. He will know that there are duties to do so written into the terms of the licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will also know that in those areas where cables are laid, about one quarter of all homes subsequently decide to participate in cable television. That has led to investment across the United Kingdom of well over £1 billion.

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister find time today to check on a transcript of the "Today" programme earlier this week, when his right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that he would not be Prime Minister after November, or after the autumn? If that is the case, will he make sure that his right hon. and learned Friend is incorrect, as he is such a good asset to us in the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I seem to recall cheap questions like that before the previous election. I am still here and the Opposition are still there.

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), does my right hon. Friend agree that the IRA-Sinn Fein must now be treated with complete contempt? Does he further agree that unless it signs the declaration tomorrow, it should forfeit its opportunity to be part of it?

The Prime Minister: I think that every hon. Member of the House will have nothing but contempt for the IRA's behaviour. With the attacks that it has made, both in Northern Ireland and at Heathrow yesterday, it has demonstrated again its disregard for human life and for opinion on both sides of the community. I believe that my hon. Friend misunderstands the long-term purpose and import of the declaration that I signed with the Taoiseach in December. It sets out a series of principles on which we hope and intend to try to build a permanent peace for Northern Ireland.

British Forces (Bosnia)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the British contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping effort in Bosnia.
Since the first deployment of UNPROFOR troops to the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom has contributed to the growing international military effort to contain the conflict and alleviate suffering. In the spring of 1992, we sent an Army field ambulance to Croatia. In the autumn of that year, we sent an armoured infantry battalion group to Bosnia to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict. That deployment has undoubtedly helped to save thousands of lives. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are also making a very important contribution.
There are now some 2,450 British soldiers serving in UNPROFOR's Bosnia-Herzegovina command— a contribution second only to that of the French. Since the beginning of the year, we have also provided the commander for the UN forces in Bosnia, Lieutenant-General Sir Michael Rose, who is carrying out his responsibilities in a most impressive manner. Our military effort in the former Yugoslavia is outstanding in scale, range and quality, and we need fear no comparison with the contribution of any other nation in the world.
Until recently, the diplomatic and military efforts of the international community achieved limited success. Spillover of the conflict was prevented and relief was successfully brought to its victims, but the warring factions in Bosnia seemed determined to carry on fighting. The prospect, however, has been transformed by the NATO ultimatum that followed the mortar attack on the Sarajevo marketplace on 5 February, the ceasefire agreement in Sarajevo, which was negotiated by General Rose on 9 February, and the removal or corralling of the heavy weapons attacking the city.
Those dramatic events not only brought a fragile calm to Sarajevo itself, but have acted as a catalyst elsewhere in Bosnia. On 23 February, a ceasefire was signed between the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Croat commanders which provided for withdrawal of troops from a buffer zone, withdrawal or UN control of heavy weapons and the opening of routes.
On Tuesday this week, United Nations troops took control of Tuzla airport. There have, of course, been many disappointments in Bosnia before, and there may be others to come; but if the ceasefires in Sarajevo and central Bosnia hold, they could be the first steps towards the ending of the conflict. I pay tribute to those in UNPROFOR who negotiated the ceasefires, and in particular to General Rose, General Cot and Mr. Akashi.
The ceasefires have brought not only new opportunities for UNPROFOR, but new responsibilities. To police a buffer zone and monitor heavy weapons, large numbers of men are needed on the ground. In central Bosnia, the front line between Muslims and Croats is 125 miles long. Quite suddenly, UNPROFOR has found its task greatly expanded and its resources greatly overstretched, both in Sarajevo and central Bosnia. The United Nations has therefore appealed for additional troops.
The Coldstream Guards, whose mission hitherto had been to support humanitarian aid convoys, have found

themselves with a major peacekeeping task on their doorstep. Their enthusiasm is great; they are determined to do their utmost to make the ceasefire a success. But it has become clear that the effort involved, while tolerable for a time, is unsustainable beyond the short term with their current manpower.
The question of reinforcement has thus become an immediate issue, not just for the British contingent, but for UNPROFOR as a whole. The United Kingdom has a national interest in securing a peaceful outcome to the Bosnian conflict, but that interest is equally shared by other European nations, some of which have closer links with the Balkans, and is also shared by the world community at large.
Although the UK contribution to the region is already a large one, a further UK contribution at this stage as part of a co-ordinated international effort would help to make the difference between success and failure for the ceasefires. That in turn should contribute to shortening the conflict, and reduce the burden on British troops currently in Bosnia.
It was for those reasons that we took the initiative in convening a meeting of troop contributors, actual and potential, in New York— under the chairmanship of Sir David Hannay, our ambassador to the UN— to see whether the international community was prepared to provide more troops for UNPROFOR to take advantage of the window of opportunity that has suddenly opened there. The results of the meeting were very encouraging. Leaving aside any offer by the United Kingdom, there have been offers amounting to some 3,850 new troops, plus further offers to redeploy some 2,450 troops from elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. That gives a total of 6,300 extra troops for Bosnia, in addition to any UK contribution. Finally, up to a further 4,000 troops are expected to be deployed by the summer.
As part of this response, Her Majesty's Government have decided to reinforce the British UNPROFOR contingent by sending a second battalion group, some 900 strong, to central Bosnia, initially for four months. Its nucleus will be the 1st Duke of Wellington regiment, which is equipped with the Saxon wheeled armoured personnel carrier. Advance elements of the battalion will be in Split by tonight. The battalion group will include engineers, signallers and support troops, and a medium reconnaissance squadron of the Light Dragoons.
We will always be cautious when sending British troops to serve in a foreign country. We have had to strike a balance among a number of factor: the manpower demands of UNPROFOR's expanding role, the prospects of peace taking hold, our own national interest, the willingness of the rest of the world to recognise theirs and, above all, the need to ensure that British troops are not asked to do the impossible. Our judgment is that reinforcement is the right course at the present time. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the battalion group godspeed.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Labour has been calling for the dispatch of additional troops for peacekeeping in Bosnia for some time now, and welcomes the fact that, at long last, Her Majesty's Government have responded positively. We join the Government in hoping that the peace that has come about,


in a rather unexpected way, is maintained and, indeed, extended throughout Bosnia. We see the dispatch of British troops as part of that process.
Indeed, it is a tribute to the professionalism and impartiality of British troops that they are in so much demand by the United Nations throughout the world. We wish all the service personnel well in their undertaking of this dangerous and hazardous task in Bosnia, and their attempt to end the carnage and murder there; we trust and pray that they all return home safely.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the extra troops will have the specific objective of maintaining the fragile peace—which is a somewhat different role from the original purely humanitarian one? Have the rules of engagement been altered to take account of that change of role?
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned that other countries had joined us. Can he give the House any idea of which countries have decided to help us to bring about and extend the peace, and has any progress been made in persuading the United States that the peace process actually is a process? Is the United States prepared to fulfil its promise to put in troops once a peace process has been agreed by the three sides?
Will the Secretary of State advise the House whether he feels that there is any danger in other parts of the former Yugoslavia, from where troops have been transferred? I presume that the transfer has been from Croatia and possibly Macedonia. Is there any news on whether the Americans will increase their contribution in Macedonia and thereby perhaps relieve other troops there?
The main question remains: why have we had to wait three weeks for the Secretary of State's announcement? Did not General Rose—having brought about a peace by his bold initiative—plead for extra troops from the Government three weeks ago? Why have the Government dithered so long when the troops have been ready and waiting to go since 17 February? Does not the Secretary of State realise that his vacillation and delay have put at risk not only the tenuous peace, but the lives of our overstretched troops in Bosnia?
The Secretary of State made great play of his efforts in the UN, and rightly so, but does he not realise that Britain, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a responsibility to be a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to helping in United Nations operations?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but not surprised, that the hon. Gentleman should have spoiled his earlier remarks by his rather foolish and silly comments at the end. He must be as aware as the rest of the House that, far from dithering, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in coordinating the response at the UN. That has been widely recognised both by the UN and by the rest of the international community. The hon. Gentleman either displays total ignorance of what has been happening in the past week or a desire to be partisan, even at a time when our armed forces would expect the House to speak with a single voice on such a matter. He cheapens his role as the official spokesman of the Opposition in that way.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, for obvious reasons, we do not normally comment on the details of rules of engagement, but I assure him that the new forces that go to Bosnia will have the same opportunities to ensure their protection as all other British forces in Bosnia.

In the past year, we have seen how British forces have not been slow to defend themselves with the military assets at their disposal, whenever that has been necessary.
Of course, it is for individual Governments to announce their national contribution—I cannot do that on their behalf—but the French, the Russians and the Czechs have already said publicly that they propose to make significant additional contributions and a number of other countries are at an advanced stage of considering doing so. The assurances that have been given at the UN add up to the 6,300 additional troops, to which I referred.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the implications, for example, in Macedonia if troops were redeployed from there to Bosnia. We understand that the United States is giving those matters some consideration and may make an early announcement. It is important that any troop movement from Macedonia or Croatia should be made only if it is operationally sensible to do so, and that might mean, in certain circumstances, replacing existing troops with those from other countries.
As I said, the main role of the Duke of Wellington regiment when it arrives in Bosnia will be to relieve the burden on the Coldstream Guards and to share the responsibility of monitoring the position in central Bosnia, given the improved position that now exists.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Obviously, a large number of hon. Members want to be called, so I ask for brisk exchanges from both Back-Bench Members and the Government Front Bench.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, some members of the Select Committee on Defence have been fortunate enough to visit General Rose and the forces of all three services at Split—we returned yesterday. My right hon. and learned Friend will be reassured to know that the morale of our troops out there is extremely high and there is no doubt that they are carrying out their job superbly.
There is, however, great overstretch in our troops central Bosnia, principally as a result of the agreement on a ceasefire reached between the Croat and Muslim commanders. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to send a battalion to support us in the difficult task, and I hope that he will be guaranteed the support of the House.
I have two brief questions. First, is it correct that the troops will be attached to the BRITFOR forces under the command of Brigadier Reith and be responsible principally to him? Secondly, on a more general note, is it still Government policy to refrain from any involvement in peacemaking but to reiterate the importance of peacekeeping?

Mr. Rifkind: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do not perceive the basic role of British forces as having changed. They are there as part of a United Nations mission, not to enforce a peace but to contribute towards the peace that we hope is emerging in Bosnia. In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, the forces will come under the command of Brigadier Reith, but they will, of course, be under the overall command of General Rose, who will determine their detailed deployment, which we expect will be to help the British troops already in central Bosnia.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome without qualification the Secretary of State's announcement? May I also congratulate the Government on the diplomatic achievement that they initiated at the United Nations? Will the Secretary of State say whether, during the Government's initiative, efforts were made to persuade the United States of not only the military value of their involvement but the psychological advantage that it would give to the whole UN effort in the former Yugoslavia?
Does the Secretary of State agree that any welcome that the House may give to his announcement will be more than outweighed by the favourable reception that it will receive from British forces in Bosnia who will see it as a welcome reinforcement of the considerable success that they have achieved in the past two weeks or so?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for congratulating the Government on their diplomatic efforts at the United Nations, which have borne significant fruit—indeed, they have perhaps borne fruit to an even greater extent than many had anticipated. I know that the United States is giving serious thought to being able to make a useful contribution to the new initiative. Clearly, it sees certain constraints on it at the moment, but I think that it is likely that it will be able to assist the new efforts in a positive and helpful way.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that not every member of the Security Council sends troops anywhere in the world that the United Nations requires them and that, if the circumstances were to change dramatically, we still have provision for the safe evacuation of our forces?

Mr. Rifkind: We have always had contingency plans in case the withdrawal of British forces or other UN forces might be required. As for my hon. Friend's earlier comment, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, China does not, of course, at present participate in UN missions. The United States plays a significant part in the work of the United Nations, including that in the former Yugoslavia, as it has forces in Croatia and Macedonia, although only a small handful in Bosnia at present.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State will have seen that his visit to Bulford camp yesterday featured on television. He appeared there with my son, who is currently accompanying the Saxons on their sea trip to Split. I am sure that we all have confidence in the ability of the units that are already deployed there and those that are joining them, and that we wish them well. However, I understand that the heavier assets that were there have been withdrawn. Can the Secretary of State assure us that, in the event of things turning sour, as they could well do, those assets will be replaced? Will he also say whether the four-month duration to which he referred is to be rotational and that units will be moved around?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's son is one of the many fine young men and women who are serving in Bosnia, doing splendid work in enhancing the reputation of United Kingdom armed forces. There have been times in the past year when certain equipment has been temporarily withdrawn if it was deemed to be operationally unnecessary, but it can always be returned if the situation changes—the hon. Gentleman may be assured of that.
On rotational matters, I have indicated today that the new battalion group is going out for an initial period of four months. Of course, we shall come to a judgment at the appropriate time about whether that should be continued, depending on the circumstances that exist in Bosnia at that time.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Now that it is clear that British troops have moved from a humanitarian role to a peacekeeping role, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House for how many months he anticipates that some 3,500 British troops will be in Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot make that prediction; nor would I try to do so. Until three or four weeks ago, it looked as though little progress was being made towards the ending of this ghastly war. Then, perhaps suddenly, the situation began to improve in a fairly dramatic way. In the past month alone, there has been real hope and real prospects for improvement of a kind that had not been seen for some time. It is not possible to make the kind of prediction for which my hon. Friends asks.
I believe that the reinforcements which we and other UN countries are proposing at the present time create a better prospect for the success of the current, fragile moves towards peace. That would not only bring an end to the war, but enable the return home of all the UN forces at an earlier date than would otherwise have proved possible.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that the announcement has been made at last, but will the Secretary of State give some indication of the effect that the further deployment will have on the emergency tour interval for our forces? In view of the increasing evidence of overstretch in the British armed forces, will he heed the specific recommendation made by the Defence Select Committee, that the Government should halt the rundown of the British Army?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have the target of an emergency tour interval of 24 months, which should be reached by the time the draw-down has been completed in 1995. We still have every expectation that, notwithstanding today's announcement, that target will be met. I have checked that point in particular.
On the hon. Gentleman's general point, he should compare the 3,500 troops in Bosnia—our main new commitment in recent years—with the reduction of about 40,000 in the British Army in Germany. That huge reduction of the requirement to have forces permanently in Germany has enabled us to make the changes to the Army to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend on his welcome announcement, may I ask whether he will confirm that, during the past three, critical weeks, the UN and all the Governments concerned have had nothing but positive co-operation from the legitimate and recognised Government of Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: One of the changes that are to be welcomed over the past few weeks has been the increased co-operation from the Bosnian Government and from certain of the representatives of the other warring groups. It is precisely for that reason that the Croat-Muslim ceasefire, for example, in central Bosnia, has proved to


have far more substance than we have seen in the past. Without that co-operation from Croat as well as Bosnian-Muslim authorities, we would not be seeing the progress on the ground that we are now able to report.

Mr. Tony Benn: Apart from the uneasiness felt by many people of different opinions at Britain getting deeper and deeper into what the Foreign Secretary described on 10 February as a civil war, is the Secretary of State aware that to send Turkish troops would be historically illiterate and intensely dangerous, not only because Turkey ruled that part of the world for six centuries, but because Turkish troops occupy northern Cyprus against United Nations instructions, and are themselves violators of international law? Will he make it absolutely clear that there would be no British Government support of Turkish troops being sent into the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Rifkind: Obviously, the offer by the Turkish Government to send forces to Bosnia is a matter for the Secretary-General, on which he will come to a view. He will be the person who takes that decision on behalf of the UN. Although those are delicate and sensitive issues, there are already forces from Russia, for example, in Bosnia. Russia is well known to have close links in the historical relationship with the Serbian community. I do not believe that, automatically,. it must follow that the historical background of various countries in the Balkans should preclude their being able to make a current contribution.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that those of us who warned from the beginning against the dangers of committing British ground forces in the former Yugoslavia, even for the protection of humanitarian convoys, now view with a sickening sense of the inevitable the slowly unfolding fact that, as we all predicted, we are moving on from protecting the convoys to maintaining peace? In those circumstances, why are we sending only one battalion, when five divisions will eventually prove insufficient?

Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has always opposed sending any British forces to Bosnia. However, he should reflect on the fact that about 30 members of the United Nations now are making some contribution of troops in the former Yugoslavia. Against that background, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom could have declined to be part of the international effort to help when there is a huge amount of suffering in a fellow European country. The size of the reinforcements that we are now sending corresponds closely with what General Sir Michael Rose believes would be the kind of contribution from the United Kingdom that would help to meet his needs. That is an important factor to bear in mind.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State knows that there are dangers of civil war in other countries in eastern Europe. Is his decision today a sign that British troops may go into other countries in eastern Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: Any request from the United Nations is considered on its merits. British forces have been and still are in a number of other countries. One thinks of Cambodia and Cyprus, as well as other parts of the world. But it does not automatically follow that the United Kingdom sends

troops to any international crisis. In Somalia, for example, we had no forces on the ground because we believed that the contribution that we were making elsewhere was quite sufficient in terms of our overall international responsibilities. Each crisis and each United Nations contribution will be considered on its merits at the time.

Sir Peter Hordern: As the armed forces in Bosnia are there under the auspices of the United Nations in a peacekeeping role, is it not vital that every major country in the United Nations, especially the United States, be represented? Would it not make a material difference to the commitment shown in Bosnia and to the prospects for peace if the United States had forces on the ground?

Mr. Rifkind: The United States already makes a major contribution to the affairs of Bosnia, as we saw with the imposition of the no-fly zone and the shooting down of Bosnian Serb aircraft by United States aircraft. The United States navy is also making an important contribution, and its forces are present on the ground in both Macedonia and Croatia.
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about ground forces in Bosnia. The United States has suggested that if there were an overall ceasefire in Bosnia and a consequent need for a larger UN force, it would be prepared to make a significant contribution to the ground forces that might be required. Whether the United States will respond to the present gradual implementation of a ceasefire is for that country to determine.
We are all conscious of the fact that the situation is different from what was expected in Washington and in other capitals a few weeks ago. We have what could properly be described as a creeping ceasefire in various parts of Bosnia, and that may influence the debate in Washington, as it has done in other capitals.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on having managed to borrow a bit of backbone from somewhere. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share the general relief that America has taken over the construction of peace in the old Yugoslavia from the devious, damaging and dangerous policies of David Owen?

Mr. Rifkind: I would not want to enter into the personal estrangement between the hon. Gentleman and Lord Owen. All I can say is that, if I ever needed the advice of one or other of them to help solve a serious international problem, I might prefer that of Lord Owen.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In the light of the long experience of Her Majesty's forces in Northern Ireland, where they have had to contain inter-communal strife in extremely difficult circumstances, and given that we have an all-regular system of engagement, are not British forces in Bosnia likely to make a contribution whose effectiveness will be out of all proportion to their numbers?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend look again at the "Options for Change" exercise, because the conditions that it presupposed, of a safer and more secure Europe, do not seem to apply any longer?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the vast experience of British forces,


partly through their experience of Northern Ireland, and partly through the many other operations that they have carried out on behalf of the United Nations and elsewhere.
The "Options for Change" exercise postulated the circumstances that would exist with the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. I do not think that there is any illusion in this country about the fact that Europe remains a very unstable place, where there are new threats and tensions. That is why we have every intention of ensuring that the British Army and the armed forces as a whole remain highly capable, well equipped, well trained and able to carry out tasks on behalf of the United Kingdom in years to come. It will be a smaller Army than it was during the cold war, but that is true of every NATO country, of Russia and, indeed, of virtually every other European country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to reflect on whether they should approach the United Nations—incidentally, we have a veto there—to plead with it to think very carefully before introducing any Turkish Ottoman troops to that area? Given history, and given their ruthlessness, it is really setting a keg in a very delicate situation.

Mr. Rifkind: These are matters to which the Secretary-General of the United Nations will wish to give appropriate weight. At a time when we have a strong need to ensure the level of UN forces in Bosnia to carry out the mandate, and when all UN forces in Bosnia will come not under national command but under Sir Michael Rose and General Cot, as UN commanders, most countries in the region have an important contribution to make and, therefore, can provide helpful assistance.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is precious little point in our having the best peacekeeping troops in the world if they are not deployed, especially at the request of a British general who has been conspicuous in his ability to get things done in that tragic region? In view of the uncomfortable, long-term implications of such deployments, will he continue to urge other nations to make appropriate contributions, using as their yardstick the brilliant expertise and ability of British troops?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, over the past week, we decided to take the initiative in the United Nations in order to ensure proper co-ordination of the international response. Without that British initiative at the UN, it is possible that each country would have been waiting for every other country to make an announcement, rather than coming forward with their own proposals. We ensured that, in each of the capitals, concentration and effort were given to deciding what contribution could be made. That is why it has been possible today to announce a total of at least 6,000 additional troops. Indeed, that figure may increase in the weeks to come.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State accept that we not only applaud the fine work of our soldiers and military people in Bosnia but recognise that they are well respected as a highly disciplined and even-handed force by all the warring factions?
Has the participation of Russia been the most significant factor leading to the opening of Tuzla airport? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether that means that the Russian troops who are presently situated in eastern Slavonia will have to be withdrawn? If so, where will replacements come from? May we have some information about the deployment or redeployment of the Russian troops?

Mr. Rifkind: The question of the deployment or redeployment of Russian troops is essentially a matter for the UN commanders in the former Yugoslavia. That is their responsibility, and they will report their views to the Secretary-General.
We welcome the Russian contribution, as we welcome the contributions from other countries. Clearly, Russia—with the particular relationship it has with the Serbian population—can sometimes influence events in a hopeful and constructive way. One of the great benefits during the past two years has been the way in which Russia and the other permanent members of the Security Council have worked closely in putting through various resolutions. We saw a clear example of that in the support that Russia gave to the action taken by NATO in shooting down the Bosnian Serb aircraft which had violated the no-fly zone. Such agreement would have been unthinkable a few years ago, and illustrates the change in the situation.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Having had occasion a week ago to express my concern to the Prime Minister at the apparent delay in responding to General Rose's urgent appeal for more troops, may I now say to my right hon. and learned Friend—and, through him, to the Prime Minister—how warmly I welcome today's announcement of the dispatch of a battalion group to reinforce our forces in Bosnia?
May I also, through my right hon. and learned Friend, congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the excellent job that he and Sir David Hannay have done in drumming up support from other allied nations and the UN? Is it not clear that General Rose—by demonstrating that the Serbs are not 12 ft tall and that a bit of courage goes a long way—has done a superb job? We owe him, and the superb men under his command, a great debt.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, which I am sure are entirely justified. I would add one note of caution, however. The UN has been successful in the past few weeks and I pay tribute, as does the House, to the remarkable achievements of General Rose. However, the war cannot be brought to an end solely by the UN, although the UN can be a magic ingredient—if I can put it that way—which enables the factions to end the conflict and come to some long-term peace agreement.
There are many hundreds of thousands of people fighting in Bosnia. The UN can make a crucial contribution when the time is right to bring peace. That time may now be near, and perhaps the UN can carry out that role. However, we must not expect either General Rose or the UN to deliver more than can be realistically expected of them.

Mr. Bruce George: The Defence Select Committee was privileged to meet General Rose and Brigadier Reith—two superb officers among many superb officers. I doubt whether any hon. Member who had been exposed to their arguments for additional troops, as


the Defence Select Committee was, could have argued against the use of additional forces. There has been a gross overstretch of forces, and there are historic opportunities awaiting us. The argument is overwhelming, and I welcome the initiative.
If the detachments are to go out early, when will the rest arrive? When will their equipment arrive and was not there a better way of sending it than by a protracted sea journey? Could not a heavy airlift have been considered? Most important, when will the troops be ready to operate? The time for intervention is now, and I welcome the Government's response, albeit slightly late.

Mr. Rifkind: The first company is flying out tonight and the remainder of the battalion group will join them in several days. The heavier equipment probably will have to go by sea. Some consideration has been given to whether some of it could be carried by an airlift; it would be preferable if that could be done.
The first task of the troops when they arrive, subject to their commanders, probably will be to take up static duties until their vehicles arrive. That will release the existing British troops to take on more mobile responsibilities, so there will be no waste of time. From the moment they arrive, they will be doing valuable and important work, and the overall pressure on the Coldstream Guards and the other existing forces will be substantially reduced.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that elements of the efficient NATO command structure, which played such a notable part in the success that we had in Sarajevo, will continue to be in place while we are maintaining and securing the recent peace agreements which were so successfully negotiated?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. One of General Sir Michael Rose's priorities has been to reform the command structure to make it more cohesive and effective. Brigadier Reith, the commander of the British forces, has an overall responsibility as a one-star officer not only for the British forces but for the Malaysian, Canadian and other forces in that part of Bosnia.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: My party is reassured that the Secretary of State has resisted pressure to take precipitate action to increase United Kingdom troop levels before obtaining the co-operation of allied nations. May I suggest that we shall be undertaking an open-ended task in Bosnia, because of the bitterness between the factions, unless we can obtain some means to ensure that those factions surrender their heavy field artillery and other weaponry, rather than simply withdraw them from particular areas at particular times?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was important to ensure that the British contribution was made not in isolation, but as part of an international response to the request that the United Nations made to the international community as a whole. With regard to the duration of our commitment, from the first moment that we sent British forces, we could not be certain of the precise length of tour that would be required. We must seek so to assist the United Nations effort that a ceasefire becomes effective and leads to a political settlement. Only when there is a political settlement will the need for UN forces in Bosnia gradually disappear. We are actively working towards that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week. 
MONDAY 14 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day) (1st part).
Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on housing, in so far as it relates to the Department of Environment's grants in aid to the Housing Corporation. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding excess votes, supplementary estimates and defence votes A.
The Chairman of the Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 15 MARCH—Second Reading of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH—Until seven o'clock: Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order.
Motions on orders relating to rateable values.
Motion on the Nuclear Installations (Increase of Operators' Limits of Liability) Order.
Motions on regulations relating to legal aid and advice (Scotland), followed by motion relating to the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 17 MARCH—Motion for the Easter Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
FRIDAY 18 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 21 MARCH—Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day)
There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion, the subject of which will be announced in due course.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 16 March to consider European Community documents as follows:—Committee A, document No. 7909/92 relating to the Court of Auditors' Special Report on the Environment.—Committee B, document No. 4911/92 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 4 February relating to the common rules for the internal market in electricity and gas.

[The Second Report from the Environment Committee of Session 1992–93 on the Housing Corporation (House of Commons Paper No. 466-I and II) and the Government's response thereto (Cm2363) are relevant]

[Wednesday 16 March:

European Community Document 7909/92 Environment (Court of Auditors Reprots)—Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC79-ix (1992–93)

European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: a) 4911/92, b) unnumbered—Liberalisation of Community Markets for Gas and Electricity—Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: a) HC 79-i (1992–93) and HC 79-xx (1992–93)b) HC 48-vii (1993–94).?

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. May we press him for a further statement soon on the vexed issue of the Child Support Agency? He may know that there was a lobby earlier this week which highlighted the continuing serious problems. I realise that it is not long since we had a debate on the matter, but the Leader of the House will recognise that serious debts and concerns are piling up. It would be helpful to have something further soon.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from either the President of the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office, whichever is appropriate? Is he aware that the Chemical Industries Association has sought an assurance for the past year that Britain will ratify the chemical weapons convention before it comes into force in January? The association has expressed the real anxiety that, unless we do so, the interests not only of Britain but of the association of the industry will be seriously damaged. We should like an early statement on that.
Finally, may I press the Leader of the House yet again to try to get his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement about the registration of electors, especially as there are only about three weeks left during which people from other European Community countries can register to vote in the European elections? We understand that in every other member state a publicity campaign about that is being mounted and only in Britain is there no such campaign. May we have a statement about that soon, please?

Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, I can be as brief as your injunction to us asks.
I am not in a position to promise a statement on any of those matters, but I will bring the requests to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Paul Marland: May I ask please for a debate on Lloyd's? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My interest in the subject is well known. In 1981, during the passage of the Lloyd's Bill, Lloyd's gave specific undertakings to the House and those undertakings involved the full disclosure and clear accounting of what happened at Lloyd's which would be revealed to the names and the investors at Lloyd's. That has not been done. Further, Lloyd's council—

Madam Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, I frequently have to caution the House about statements that are made. We are questioning the business statement for next week. I like it to be done briskly so that other Members can be called.

Mr. Marland: Lord Mackay confirmed in another place that those undertakings had been given by Lloyd's. May I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on that matter because allegations are being made outside the House that there is a cover-up, and that the Government and Lloyd's are hand in glove in denying justice to the Lloyd's investors. May I ask my right hon. Friend to try to find time for a debate on that subject?

Mr. Newton: I know that my hon. Friend would not himself endorse the allegations to which he refers, but equally, I think, everyone on both sides of the House understands his concern about the matter as a whole, and the difficulties for many families, so of course I will consider his suggestion.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the leader of the House aware that it is now nearly 18 months since we had a debate in the House on substantial issues of importance to the agriculture industry? In recent weeks we have had important changes of policy on milk marketing, on the condition of the pig sector, on hill farming and on the implications of GATT for British agriculture. In the past few days we have even had an acknowledgment from Europe that there is a new report on the future, the economic viability, of the common agricultural policy. The Minister acknowledges the existence of that report but is not prepared to come to the House and explain its significance. May we have a debate as soon as possible on the state of British agriculture?

Mr. Newton: I harbour some hopes of satisfying the hon. Gentleman before the recess.

Mr. John Biffen: On Monday or Tuesday of next week, may we have a debate and a vote to sustain the position that has been adopted hitherto by the Foreign Secretary on the size of the blocking veto in the context of an enlarged Community; or does my right hon. Friend think that such a gesture is wholly unnecessary?

Mr. Newton: I cannot hold out the prospect of a debate, but my right hon. Friend has referred to the objectives that have been set out in that negotiation in relation to enlargement and to the protection of significant minorities in the Community. I can assure him that the Government will continue to pursue those objectives with vigour.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Four reports have been produced by the Home Office on electoral matters following investigations into the previous general election, when the names of millions of people were missing from electoral registers. Now that the reports have been published, may we have a debate on that important matter? Some notice could be taken of my ten-minute rule Bill, which deals with those matters and could be taken on board by the Home Office if it is seeking an avenue to introduce a rolling electoral register.

Mr. Newton: I will make the hon. Gentleman's ten-minute Bill my bedtime reading.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 752?
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday, 14th March; notes that in 1994 the Commonwealth will once again be in the eyes of the world as the Commonwealth Games are played out in Victoria, British Columbia; recognises the value of playing in a team and also notes that the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association contributes to the team of parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth by holding conferences, seminars and meetings in London and by arranging parliamentary visits to Commonwealth countries.]
The motion stands in my name and that of many hon. and right hon. colleagues on both sides of the House. It draws attention to Commonwealth day on 14 March—next Monday—and asks whether it is about time that we had a debate on the role of the Commonwealth in the world and this country's role in the Commonwealth. A debate is a long time due and I would very much welcome one.

Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that the entire Government share fully the sentiments that are expressed in the motion to which my hon. Friend has referred. I wish that I could offer a debate next Monday on a subject that sounds rather more interesting than the one that I have announced. However, I am afraid that I cannot change the business immediately.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have next week a debate on official gifts given and received by the Prime Minister? If it is necessary for the President of the United States to declare all gifts of more than a nominal value, why should not the same rule apply in the United Kingdom? When public money is being spent, the public are entitled to know what it is being spent on.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to gifts received or to gifts given, but I shall draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend again consider a request from me that he find time to debate the issue of seat belts in coaches? This is a matter of great concern to the parents in my constituency. The House should be given an opportunity to look at the research into whether such seat belts are good or bad for the safety of children. In this case, I am joined by Mr. James Elles, the Member of the European Parliament for the area in which my constituency is located. Mr. Elles too is pressing for an examination of these matters.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that anyone would want to consider with great care any evidence in this field. I shall bring my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend; and the Select Committee too may want to take note of it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday 3,000 disabled people—wheelchairs and all—were crammed into Westminster hall to demand support tomorrow for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? We believe that the Opposition can provide the necessary troops to take the Bill through its Second Reading. What disabled people want is a statement that the Government will provide the necessary parliamentary time to get it through its remaining stages. Will the Leader of the House oblige?

Mr. Newton: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, when he indicated that he hoped that the Bill would go to Committee for detailed examination of its provisions. It seems to me that that is the right course for tomorrow.

Rev. William McCrea: Bearing in mind the continuing terrorist campaign, will the Leader of the House inform hon. Members when time will be found for a debate on the London-Dublin deal, which the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, as United Kingdom citizens, believe furthers the agenda of republicanism and is detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be well aware of the fact that within the past week there have been three substantial opportunities on the Floor of the House to refer to Northern Ireland matters. My right hon.


and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be here to answer questions next Thursday, but at the moment I cannot promise anything beyond that.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Leader of the House may be aware that constructive receiverships, such as that which took place at Leyland, are threatened by a Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Paramount Airways. Has the President of the Board of Trade given this matter any thought, and will he consider making a Commons statement on the changes in insolvency legislation that are necessary if many thousands of jobs are not to be lost as a result of this court decision?

Mr. Newton: I have noticed the decision, as, no doubt, has my right hon. Friend, to whose attention I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. William Cash: With regard to the question of the blocking minority, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) received from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House an answer suggesting that the Foreign Secretary would act with vigour. Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members, and perhaps many Opposition Members, regard vigour as including the need to say no on this occasion?

Mr. Newton: The vigour and determination with which the British Government's negotiating objectives have been pursued are very clear. As I have said, we shall continue to pursue those objectives with vigour.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to give us, in a statement next week, his latest thinking on the doctrine of collective responsibility—in particular, in respect of the position of the Minister for open government? Although statements made by the latter right hon. Gentleman have not yet been repudiated by the rest of the Government, one must assume that they are at variance with the views of the Prime Minister. In addition, there should be a look at the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General, one of whom apparently has no confidence in the legal competence of the other. Surely the Prime Minister needs to clear up this matter and get a grip on his Government.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on the first half of that matter in Question Time just now, and I shall not add to what he said. In the past few weeks I have commented, in both capacities, on the second half of the question—and I shall not add to that.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)? Many people have criticised the lack of publicity that our debates seem to receive these days in quality newspapers. Some people say that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons.
There is a vital point here. Qualified majority voting is of huge national concern. Some 20,000 directives have been passed into law in the past two or three years. Many of them have been vitally affected by qualified majority

voting. On Monday and Tuesday, the House is to discuss estimates and local government in Wales. Those may be important subjects, but—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question come my way.

Mr. Leigh: If there is a matter of such vital concern—we are presently arguing about it in Brussels and a final decision is to be made on Tuesday—should we not react to that and give the House an opportunity to debate the matter so that we can back up the vigorous defence which the Government are putting up in Brussels at the moment?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has already done that with his question.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to provide an opportunity for either a statement or a debate on the Government's submission on structural plans for the multi-annual guidance programme of the European Union, given its importance to the fishing and boat-building industries in many parts of the United Kingdom and the deadline that has been set for 31 March? Surely we should have an opportunity to know what is being said in our names.

Mr. Newton: I shall consider the hon. Lady's point, but I cannot promise a debate next week.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Even if the expansion of the Community is delayed, it could still go ahead. If we concede on the blocking minority, that will be it and the powers of this House will be significantly reduced. Will my right hon. Friend go a stage further and commit the Government to not making such a change without first allowing a significant, long and serious debate in the House?

Mr. Newton: Like a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends, my hon. Friend has made clear his support for the Government's position. I have now responded four times, and I cannot add to what I said on the previous three occasions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland that he will abandon proposals for a new law on criminal trespass to restrict people's right of access to the countryside, especially now that strong objections to the proposals have been lodged by Scottish National Heritage, the Law Society of Scotland, the Ramblers Association and the Mountaineering Council for Scotland? Is it too much to expect the Leader of the House to stand up for the rights of the common people against those of the lairds and landed gentry?

Mr. Newton: No, it is not; but it is too much to expect the Leader of the House to speak from this Dispatch Box as though he were the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider all and any representations made to him.

Mr. James Paice: May we have an early debate on unemployment? Is it not strange that we have not had one on an Opposition day for more than a year? Does my right hon. Friend think that that is because unemployment has fallen over the past year by 200,000?

Mr. Newton: Yes, of course it is because unemployment has been falling over the past year, and the Opposition never like to touch on anything that might be regarded as good news. They have not yet announced the subject for their Opposition day on Monday 21 March. I look forward to their picking up my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Tom Cox: When might the Leader of the House be in a position to make a further statement on the additional voluntary contributions scheme, which he knows is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman, who has followed the subject closely, will know of the efforts that I have made. I have recently been inquiring when the final details will be in place because I, too, should like to see that

Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that this may seem like an echo, but why is there not to be a debate in the coming week on the implementation of the Jopling report? Will my right hon. Friend perhaps have a word with the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about perhaps debating it on one of the Opposition days, seeing that so many Labour Members want reform as well?

Mr. Newton: There is another suggestion for the right hon. Lady, who, I see, is sitting patiently and listening carefully on the Opposition Front Bench. As for the objectives of the Jopling report, I would say that we have not done too badly in the past couple of weeks.

Mr. Derek Enright: Did the Leader of the House notice yesterday that the Financial Secretary launched, outside the House, a consultative document on venture capital as a successor to the business expansion scheme? Will he arrange for the Financial Secretary to come here next week and explain why the business expansion scheme was such a failure, particularly since his PPS was the boss of a venture which went down to the tune of millions of pounds, costing the Earl of Bradford £1.2 million and the country £200,000 of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Newton: That sounds like a rather provocative question to me. I do not think that I want to provide time for further provocation next week.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, during next week's debate on local government, there will be time for us to raise the subject of the increasing council tax that we see emerging from both Labour and Liberal shire counties, particularly in East Sussex, where the Liberal Democrats have increased council tax by 11 per cent.?

Mr. Newton: It seems very much in line with what is happening elsewhere, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time. The figures so far for the billing authorities, taken together, in England are, for band C and two adults, £430, Conservative; £559, Labour; and £503, Liberals. From what my hon. Friend has said, the Liberals are running hard to catch up with Labour.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May I endorse the demand by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) for a debate on Lloyd's? We could then see how, in 1981, all the Conservative Members voted to give massive legal immunities to the council of Lloyd's, and we could compare it with their views on trade unions. At the

same time we could list the nine hon. Members who are defying the wish of the House in failing to provide information on the number of syndicates, on which the House passed a resolution requiring them so to do. I hope that we are given an opportunity to debate the subject, because this defiance is serious.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has good cause to know what the Select Committee has said in its report on the matter, and I know that it is being carefully considered by all the hon. Members to whom he refers.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the guidelines set by the Department of the Environment for allowing travellers' sites on green belt land? In the village of Failand in my constituency, this is causing a great deal of disappointment and anger, and although it is primarily the work of Labour and the Liberals on Avon county council, I am sure that many hon. Members have the same problem and would like a debate on the subject as quickly as possible.

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that request to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate soon on the claim made in today's New Scientist that 10,000 British people a year are dying from a previously unidentified cause—minute particles emitted by car exhausts? Are we not all concerned about car pollution which has caused a great increase in the number of children suffering from asthma? Is it not crucial that we address the problem rather than increasingly giving in to the car lobby and trying to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the car for our urban space?

Mr. Newton: Given the efforts of the Government to encourage the use of lead-free petrol and some of the announcements made about policy on the tax of road fuel, that is an unjustified question. I am sure that the scientific report, which I have not myself seen, will be carefully studied in the Departments of both Health and Transport.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) in asking for a debate on council tax because, in the course of it, we can highlight the fact that the Lib-Lab-controlled county council of Kent is hard on the heels of Liberal-controlled East Sussex with an increase of 7 per cent.? Gravesham council—now Labour—not to be outdone, has gone from having the lowest council tax in Kent to fifth from the bottom.

Mr. Newton: That is a useful supporting question to the one which was asked earlier. It is further evidence of the strenuous efforts that the Liberals are making to have as bad a record as Labour.

Dr. Tony Wright: Now that the Public Accounts Committee has said that the standards of conduct in Government are at their lowest point for 140 years, the Cabinet Secretary has said that it is possible to tell Parliament half-truths and a Cabinet Minister has said that it is possible not to tell the truth at all, is there not a crisis of confidence in the conduct of Government? Is it not urgent that the Government should allow time for the House to discuss it?

Mr. Newton: I say with as much moderation as I can muster that there is something wrong when an hon. Member can give further credence to three straightforward distortions.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind that on 1 January 1996 the United Kingdom will lose its veto over the European Union's visa list, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate as soon as possible, not only on Britain's right to exercise its veto, but also on the extension of the European Union and the implications of that for other members who wish to exercise a veto?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier on what I take to be part of my hon. Friend's question. Were agreement to be reached on enlargement, that would in due course require debate.

Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the effect of gagging clauses and employer pressure on the ability of people at work to participate properly in the democratic process? I have been made aware by my constituents of the fact that some of those who work for British Rail Maintenance Ltd. in Eastleigh and for British Gas at the Botley depot in Eastleigh, who are facing redundancy, are unable to speak freely about their fears for their jobs and their futures because of those gagging clauses and that pressure. Should not the House send a clear message that anybody in Britain should be able to speak freely about the problems they face at work without fear of undue pressure from their employers?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State concerned with those industries will have noted the hon. Gentleman's words. I shall ask for them to be drawn to the attention of the chairmen of the bodies concerned.

Mr. Oliver Heald: In the light of the Employment Select Committee report today, which concludes that labour market flexibility is vital to maintaining high employment levels, and as the Opposition will not use a Supply day to discuss the subject, would it be possible to have a debate on unemployment and flexibility in the labour market, particularly as the G7 jobs summit is to take place in Detroit next week? It would give the Government and Conservative Members the opportunity to say, first, that labour market flexibility is vital, and, secondly, that deregulation, not protectionism, is the way forward.

Mr. Newton: It occurs to me that one reason, in addition to that already suggested by one of my hon. Friends, for Labour's reluctance to initiate a debate on unemployment is that precisely that point might be made and the weakness of their position would be exposed. I have sitting next to me my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who will shortly be departing for the G7 summit and will pay careful attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on reform of the regulatory system for the privatised utilities? Will he bear in mind my early-day motion 764?
[That this House notes Calor Gas has appointed the former Director-General of OFGAS, Sir James McKinnon

to act as its adviser for an undisclosed sum as part of its push to enter the United Kingdom domestic and natural gas market which he in his former role aggressively deregulated to promote new market entrants (such as Calor); further notes that Dutch-owned Calor Gas is in partnership with Norwegian-dominated Alliance and considers Mr. McKinnon's decision to sell his unique knowledge to these companies not only a grossly unpatriotic act but a shameless example of a Tory government appointee serving his time before shoving his own nose into the free market trough; recognises this disgraceful episode as symptomatic of the need to regulate the regulators by instructing them not to pursue competition as blind dogma but to act in the national interest; and calls on the President of the Board of Trade to overhaul the regulatory regime of the privatised utilities ensuring, inter alia, that as a condition of their appointment directors general are prevented from taking up subsequent appointments with private companies in the same industry sector.]
It condemns the fact that Sir James McKinnon, director-general of Ofgas, has now taken a job as a paid adviser to Calor Gas, a new entrant to the natural gas market, which he sought to break up and deregulate to encourage extra competition from companies such as Calor Gas. Now he is benefiting from that. Surely the employment contracts of directors-general of the regulatory agencies should prohibit such appointments.

Mr. Newton: I understand that Sir James McKinnon retired from Ofgas some two months before the decision was taken on the MMC inquiry. He is, of course, bound by the Gas Act 1985 not to take advantage of commercial knowledge gained during his period of appointment.

Mr. James Clappison: Is my right Friend aware that this month marks the centenary of Gladstone's resignation? Will he find time before the end of the month to debate the great ideals of Gladstonian liberalism—individual liberty, free trade, sound finance and parliamentary sovereignty—and at the same time debate why the modern Liberal Democrats have abandoned every one of those ideals, not least Gladstone's wish always to take a penny off income tax rather than, as they would do, put a penny on it all the time?

Mr. Newton: I think that that is one of the best business questions that I have heard for a long time. It shows that Gladstone would be turning in his grave if he could see what that lot gets up to.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will remember his response to me last week when I asked for a statement on thalidomide victims. Is there a possibility of a statement being made within the next week following the meeting of representatives of those victims with the Under-Secretary of State yesterday?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can promise a debate next week, but I can record my pleasure—I imagine that it will be shared by the hon. Gentleman—that, in the light of the meeting, the members of the group who were on hunger strike have decided to end their protest. I am sure that careful consideration will continue to be given to the points that they made.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern expressed about the new proposals for compensating innocent victims of


violent crime. Will he provide an early opportunity to debate the subject as, prima facie, the tariff system would seem to be wholly inadequate to replace common law and statutory principles?

Mr. Newton: We have, of course, had Home Office questions today. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to make that point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but if he did not, I will ensure that he is made aware that it has been raised now.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on early-day motion 634, which calls attention to the actions of 53 Opposition Members in voting against the increases in pensions?
[That this House notes that 53 honourable and Right honourable Labour Members voted against the Orders to uprate pensions and social security benefits and to introduce the package of extra help with VAT on fuel; and recognises that if they had been successful, millions of pensioners and less well-off people would have been deprived of the support voted through by Conservative honourable Members.]
A debate would give Conservative Members the opportunity of pointing out to our pensioner constituents the effect on their incomes if their action had been successful.

Mr. Newton: I should be pleased to arrange time for a debate, but my hon. Friend's question is a further useful opportunity to draw attention to that astonishing occasion when the Labour party voted against the pensioner.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing time for a debate on the new working practices in the House? Is he aware that many hon. Members feel that, since the usual channels have broken down, and despite the fact that pairing arrangements have broken down—I wish to declare that I do not have a pair, and so do not speak from interest—we are enjoying hours of business that are more predictable and business is transacted, in my belief, more efficiently?

Mr. Newton: I am not quite sure whether that will help or hinder the continuation of such arrangements, but in respect of part of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that he has the sympathy of the whole House.

Mr. Michael Bates: Can my right hon. Friend think of a way of providing an early opportunity for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the House and explain why, within minutes of the IRA mortar attack on the northern runway at Heathrow, he and 240 of his hon. Friends were in the Lobbies voting against a measure that would help the police to find the culprits?

Mr. Newton: If I thought that there was the slightest chance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield either being willing to explain or, indeed, being able to explain such a vote, I would very happily arrange an occasion for him to do so.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Thursday 17 March.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 15 March. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Usually the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates might not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn in debate.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Sex Discrimination

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Ms Clare Short: I beg to move,
That this House, in the week of International Women's Day, notes that women in Britain face discrimination in all aspects of their lives; deplores the Government's failure fully to implement European equality legislation or the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission; and calls on the Government to introduce legislation to simplify, strengthen and extend the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts.
When the Leader of the House announced at Business Questions last Thursday that the Opposition had chosen this subject for debate, there were jeers and catcalls from hon. Members on the Tory Benches—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No, there were not.

Ms Short: There were. If the hon. Lady was not here or did not hear them, she is simply not reflecting the truth.
It is still the case that many—not all—Conservative Members think that the issues of women's rights, views and demands for equality are a joke, at the margin of politics, not real politics, not serious politics. That attitude is deeply insulting to half the population and shows how out of tune they are with the reality in our society and across the world. There is no doubt that women's demands for equality in the workplace, the family and public life is a major force for social change, which will continue to force the pace of social progress and reform in this country and across the world. When Tory Members jeer at any mention of a debate on women in politics, they show how out of touch they are with the main stream of life in Britain and across the world.
I am sure that the Secretary of State would want to distance himself from such behaviour, but one of the pleasures of this debate is that we have at last "outed" him and forced him to admit that he is also the Minister for women. "Outing", if I understand it correctly, is forcing someone to admit publicly something that they have been trying to keep secret. Today, he is forced to admit that he is not just the Secretary of State for Employment, but is also the Minister for women.
It is noticeable that, over the past few months, the Secretary of State has appeared to have a personality change. He used to present himself as fairly mild-mannered and posed as a reasonable man. Over the past few months he has started to hector and sneer and jeer as though he is in competition with the Home Secretary. The general view of the Opposition is that he must be yet another Member of the Cabinet looking for an invitation to go on the radio and assure those listening that he has no intention of standing against the Prime Minister for the leadership of the Tory party. I also suspect that he likes to

keep it quiet that he is the Minister for women because he fears that that might not impress the jeering Tories, whose votes in the future he might wish to try to get.
As the Secretary of State might tell us later, his role as Minister for women, with a unit in his Department responsible for policy on women, a Cabinet sub-committee to co-ordinate policy and lead responsibility for the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was transferred to his Department from the Home Office, is all the accomplishment of my predecessor and great friend Jo Richardson who, sadly, died on 1
February. Jo was, as everyone in the House knows, an enormous champion of the rights of women. For many years she was shadow Minister for women. She was determined to put into Whitehall, among many other things, a Minister for women to correct the bias in the upper levels of Whitehall and in politics, where a woman's perspective is still not fully taken into account.
Jo studied examples from around the world and made preparations for the establishment of a Ministry for women when—as she hoped—we would win the election and she would take office. Thus, in the period just before the election when, as is customary, shadow Cabinet Ministers meet civil servants to make preparations for the implementation of our policy she met Sir Robin Butler. He outlined his plans to establish Jo's Ministry for women, and they are the arrangements that we now have in the Department of Employment. Sadly, we did not win the election. Even more sadly, Jo did not become the Minister for women. But her work bore fruit and the present machinery in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy for women is a result of her work.
We intend to monitor closely the work of the Minister for women and his Department. This debate is part of that effort.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is the hon. Lady aware that 40 per cent. of appointments made by the Public Appointments Unit are of women? Four years ago, the figure was only 30 per cent. That is a substantial increase, over quite a short time.

Ms Short: I agree that that is something of an improvement. However, I am describing something far more important—the new machinery in Whitehall to co-ordinate policy for the benefit of women. As I have explained, that is largely a product of the work of Jo Richardson, who was deeply admired and loved in the House. I assume that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) does not wish to take anything away from Jo Richardson's accomplishment in achieving the arrangements that now exist.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), I do not wish to take anything away from the work of a grand lady. Is she aware, however, that there has long been a ministerial group on women's issues in Whitehall? It used to be chaired by the Minister of State, Home Office: I recall that, because I was a member. The role of chairman has been upgraded by being moved to Cabinet level.

Ms Short: I am indeed aware of that—and the machinery that existed when the hon. Lady was a Minister has been massively strengthened because of the work of Jo Richardson. I do not want to keep repeating that point, but Conservative Members do not seem capable of taking it on board.
As I was saying, we intend to monitor the Minister's work carefully and this debate is part of that effort. On behalf of all the major women's organisations in Britain, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for an annual debate on the work of his Ministry and the Government's strategy in advancing the position of women.
I have received letters and messages from a wide range of women's organisations: the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett Society, the townswomen's guilds and the National Alliance of Women's Organisations, for instance. They are delighted that the debate is taking place; they point out that it is the first debate on the Sex Discrimination Act since it was passed 20 years ago—by a Labour Government, of course. They are also irritated that they were given such short notice of the debate and they ask for an annual debate of the sort that I have mentioned.
I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to respond immediately. If he does not—he is shaking his head—I hope that in his speech he will make a commitment that the Government will arrange an annual debate, in Government time, to monitor the progress of women's equality in Britain.
As I have said, women's demand for equality is a major force for social change. If we stand back for a moment, we can see how powerful it has been historically. We have just celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's getting the vote. What a struggle that was; what an insult it was that, as the franchise was widened, women were left out. But they fought and struggled and ensured that they were given the vote. That was one part of our great progress.
On and on it went. Women had to struggle for the right to be educated and the right to own property after they were married. They continue to struggle against the ugly problem of domestic violence, which still represents a quarter of all reported violent crime in Britain: it is a massive and often hidden problem, which reflects the inequality of power between men and women and demeans a civilised society.
It was announced today that the Secretary of State for Health is to take responsibility for co-ordinating policy on the family. I strongly suggest that she and the Minister for women agree to prepare a national strategy to deal with the problem of domestic violence. I congratulate the National Society of Local Government Women's Committees on its current "zero tolerance" campaign and on the startling and powerful posters and postcards that it has produced to challenge the widespread acceptance that violence against women in their homes is a normal part of our culture and society.
When we examine the historical record—women's struggle for the vote and for the rights to be educated and to own property—we see that women have advanced considerably over the years; but we also see that they still face major discrimination and disadvantage in society. It was the Prime Minister himself who said, at the launch of Opportunity 2000:
Why should half our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase?
That is the question before us today.
More than 20 years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970—by a Labour Government, of course—women still earn only 79 per cent. of men's full-time hourly earnings. They cluster in jobs that are seen as women's

jobs, often undervalued and underpaid. Women also form the bulk of part-time workers, with low pay and few opportunities for overtime or bonus earnings.
This reality—that the overwhelming majority of women are stuck in low-paid jobs, with little opportunity for training, promotion or access to pension entitlements, so that the overwhelming majority of those who are poor in old age are women—is currently the major barrier to women's advance. This is the issue that must be tackled if they are to cease to be what the Prime Minister called "a hobbled horse".
Despite what the Prime Minister said, the position of women in Britain has deteriorated since the Government came to power 15 years ago. In 1991—the latest year for which figures are available—the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the league in terms of pay differentials between male and female manual workers in Europe. In terms of women's earnings as a percentage of men's, the top country is Denmark, with 84.7 per cent; the bottom country is the United Kingdom, with 67.1 per cent. In 1980, just after Labour lost power, we were fourth from the bottom. The position has deteriorated.
We are also bottom of the European nursery education table, with just 35 to 40 per cent. of three to five-year-olds in nursery education, compared with over 95 per cent. in Belgium and France and over 85 per cent. in Denmark and Italy. Yet research undertaken by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government's own agency, and published in December 1992 shows that the cost to the Government of a phased expansion of subsidised child care—including out-of-school care, as well as nursery places—would be more than outweighed by savings in social security payments and increased tax revenue.
The strategy is available; the savings are clear. Such action would lead to a big improvement in the lives of women and children: the research makes it plain that nursery education causes children to do better when they go to school. Yet the Government have failed to implement the strategy.
We are also at the bottom of the European maternity pay tables, even after the Government's reluctant improvement this week—which was forced on them by the European Union. They resisted an improvement in maternity provision for all the women of Europe, but they have now grudgingly been forced to make an improvement. We welcome any improvement, but we know that we are still the worst off in Europe and that 20 per cent. of the poorest and lowest-income women in Britain will receive absolutely no maternity entitlement from the scheme announced by the Government.
Moreover, we are among just four European countries that fail to offer any parental leave provision, entitling parents to take time off work when their children are sick. It is, of course, Britain—of all the countries in Europe—that is blocking a proposed European directive that would give the father or mother the right to take time off to care for children.
The truth is that the British Government refuse to make the changes that are needed in our sex discrimination and equal pay laws so that women can cease to be "a hobbled horse" and try to resist the improvements coming from the European Union. When forced by the European Union to make changes, they do so grudgingly and with bad grace. An example that is central to this debate is the law on equal pay for work of equal value, which the Government were forced to introduce as a result of a European directive.
I well remember that night. The speech was the first to be made by Alan Clark, the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment. He was horrified to learn that his first action as a Minister would be to introduce a measure intended to advance the equality of women, a cause for which he did not stand. What he did that night—as he has since admitted—was have quite a few drinks and then read his script for jokes. He introduced the measure in a way that showed the House that he did not believe in it—that he derided it. Since leaving this place, he has had the grace to admit in his memoirs that that is exactly what he did and that perhaps he should not have behaved in that way.
The law provides a right, but it had to be passed to meet the requirements of the European Union. Mr. Clark made it clear to the House that he intended the law to be unenforceable in practice. Lord Denning described it as
tortuosity and complexity beyond compare".
It needs to be changed, simplified and made enforceable. That is one of the changes for which we are calling today and which the Government refuse to make.
The Equal Opportunities Commission is required by law—passed, of course, by a Labour Government—to keep the Equal Pay Act 1970 under review. The former Labour Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, made it clear when he introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that we saw it as only a beginning on which we would have to build to produce real equality for women. In 1988 and 1989, the Equal Opportunities Commission proposed to bring together, simplify and strengthen the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts.
On Tuesday—International Women's Day—I visited the Equal Opportunities Commission. In discussions, we agreed that if the Government wanted the rights that exist in theory and in law to be enforceable in practice, they would implement the changes for which the Equal Opportunities Commission has called. The Government will not do so, however. In public, they appear to be in favour of women's equality and women's employment, but in practice they are not.
The Government's behaviour in response to the proposals of the Equal Opportunities Commission shows their attitude. It took them five years to bother to reply; even then, their reply was almost completely negative. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made it clear that it deeply regrets that. It has asked the Government to think again. I also understand that the Government have not yet had the decency to respond to the changes proposed by the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland. As we examine the record, it becomes clearer why the hobbled horse continues to hobble.
The position now is that the Equal Opportunities Commission has made a submission to the European Commission to argue that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under the treaty of Rome and the equal pay directive. The Trades Union Congress has also made an official complaint arguing that the abolition of the wages councils is a breach of European law. If the Commission finds in favour of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC—it is difficult to see how it could do anything else—it is likely to take Britain to the European Court for breaching its obligations on equality for women.
The picture is clear. The Government's policy on women's equality is out of line with those of all the other Governments in Europe, and with European parties that share their political tradition. The other European Conservative parties understand that the agenda has to be taken forward and that women are entitled to equality. Only the British Conservative party cannot tolerate the agenda and tries to hold it back for women in Britain and the European Community. We have made progress only when the European Union has dragged a few concessions out of the Government, which they have always made grudgingly and half-heartedly.
The Opposition were absolutely delighted by the House of Lords' decision last Thursday—in response to a judicial review brought by the Equal Opportunities Commission—that it was illegal because of our obligations under our treaty of accession to the European Community for the Government to provide fewer employment protection rights for part-time workers than for full-time workers. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us when he will introduce legislation and how he will implement that decision. We do not want any more dragging of feet, but urgent action.
The position of women and their rights in the labour market are at the core of the Government's economic policy. Since 1979, the strategy of the Government has been to deregulate the labour market, to remove all protection from low-paid workers, to reduce social protection in general and to compete by making British labour cheap. Women have borne the brunt of that policy and are the battering ram of that strategy.

Mr. Oliver Heald: As the hon. Lady knows, the Conservative argument is that deregulation means more jobs. [Interruption.] Let me finish my argument. Between 1984 and 1991, there was a massive increase of 19 per cent. in the number of women in the work force. Should not she pay tribute to the achievement of those women, who now have new opportunities? Does not it show that what the Government say is right?

Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman should listen to my speech. The first great recession created by the Thatcher Government destroyed 2 million jobs in manufacturing industry and much of our manufacturing capacity. The jobs that were lost were overwhelmingly male.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) chooses his dates selectively. In the boom that was created to get the Government through one of their election contests, part-time, low-paid jobs in the service sector were generated and taken up by women. Labour market projections suggest that that trend will continue. More and more full-time jobs for men are being destroyed, low-paid jobs for women are being created, and the labour market is being dragged down.
The fact that women are cheap labour is bad for them and is being used to push men out of the labour market. That is not an economic strategy for our country. It drags down standards for everyone. It is not in the interests of women and men, or of the long-term health of the British economy.

Mr. Richard Spring: The Labour party has said that it is in favour of minimum wage legislation. Will the hon. Lady speculate on the disastrous effects that that policy would have on employment


generally and female employment in particular, as is shown in Spain, Portugal and France? The Labour party's policy would enormously increase unemployment, and that would affect women directly.

Ms Short: The hon. Gentleman shows the funny, strange and isolated world in which the Tory party lives. Every Government in the European Union has minimum wage protection. The United States has minimum wage protection. Every other developed country understands that the way to compete in the modern world is to have a highly skilled work force and a high-investment, high-technology economy.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: rose—

Ms Short: I have not finished dealing with the intervention by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). Only the British Government believe that the way forward is to compete with poorer countries by cutting wages. That strategy is a disaster for our economy. We need a minimum wage, which will pay for itself through the tax take and savings in family credit, to create a healthy economy of high skills and high investment. The Tory party is on its own. It is hobbling women and the British economy through its dedication to using women as low-paid workers and to cutting wages and conditions. It is damaging our future and the interests of everyone.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Ms Short: I want to make some progress, if I may.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Ms Short: Will the hon. Lady please sit down? I shall give way after I have made some progress in my speech [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House must settle down. I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady gave way to a man and not to a woman. That is sexist.

Ms Short: It is clear that some of my comments are stinging Conservative Members. They are making so much noise that they are not allowing the debate to continue.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Ms Short: I said that I shall give way in a minute. 'The hon. Lady should sit down and then I shall give way.
This week, Britain is again isolated in Europe. It has blocked the accession of the European Free Trade Association countries because it is terrified of losing the right to veto any proposals that the other Governments of Europe might agree on social protection for workers. Britain alone is isolated and increasingly in conflict with all her other European partners, including those led by Conservative Governments.
Similarly, the British Government have today made it clear that they alone of all the Governments in Europe will seek to block protection for children at work. It is suggested that there should be a limit to the number of hours that school children can work, but the British

Government cannot bear it. We will be the only country in Europe that does not believe that children should have some protection.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, although it took her long enough to do so. If the minimum wage is such a terrific idea, can she explain why France has now passed a law allowing workers aged under 25 to be paid only 60 per cent. of the minimum wage?

Ms Short: The hon. Lady was so anxious to intervene to make that devastating point. If she really believes that the fact that there has been an adjustment to, but not a sweeping away of, the minimum wage by a Conservative Government in France is a devastating point, she will really have to try harder.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Ms Short: I have already given way once to the hon. Lady. May I please continue with my speech?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it quite clear that she is not giving way.

Ms Short: The Tories do not like to hear the truth about their isolation from the main stream of economic development, so they are trying to barrack and make a lot of noise.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Ms Short: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. She knows that she should not stand and shout like that.
Britain is the only country in the European Union incapable of signing the social chapter. That is part and parcel of the problem. Britain's backwardness—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Ms Short: I have made it absolutely clear that I am not giving way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.

Ms Short: The Government are isolated, trying to compete by social devaluation. They cannot succeed. They are causing ever more conflict with our partners, who are angry that Britain tries to attract investment by advertising the fact that British workers are cheaper than other European workers. What a prospect to offer to the country— "We'll make you the cheapest workers in Europe, give you the poorest protection and the worst conditions." What kind of quality of life is that to offer the people of Britain?
The European Commission's Green Paper on social policy stated:
It is important to underline that high standards of social protection have been a contributory factor in Europe's economic success in the past.
Tory Members should read this paper—they might learn something. The report continues:
Many would argue that high social standards should not be seen as an optional extra, or a luxury that can be done without once times get hard, but rather as an integral part of a competitive economic model. The debate between this view and those who argue that Europe's present level of social standards are becoming unaffordable goes to the heart of the issue
and it does.
The Tory party thinks that it can compete with the Pacific rim tigers who have massively lower wage levels, or with China, whose economic performance is rising, by bringing down British wages. How low does the Tory party think that the workers of Britain are willing to go? There is only one way forward for this country: high investment and high levels of training and skills. It is the opposite of the trajectory that the Government have given to the country.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Whatever the merits of the hon. Lady's comments, she must at least admit that they are arguable. Does not she think that it would be more democratic for her and her colleagues to get elected before her policies are inflicted on the country? Does she think that it would be democratic if her policies were imposed on us by court rulings and arbitrary judgments of the European Court?

Ms Short: It is my intention that I and my colleagues shall be elected to implement these policies and, to judge from the Government's performance, it will happen fairly soon. We are bound to test the Government in the local and European elections and there will then be a general election. The Government have lost the support of the British people who agree with us, not with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Ms Short: I must make some progress because time is short.
The issue before the House and the British people and which goes to the heart of the British economy is that the Government claim to be concerned about the needs of women in Britain, but, in practice, they will not strengthen the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation, as advocated by the Labour party, the Equal Opportunities Commission and all the major women's organisations in Britain. The reason is that the Government's economic strategy depends on using women as cheap labour. The Government therefore need women in this role and cannot implement the legislation that women need to enable them to cross the barrier in the labour market. The consequences for the future of this country are very serious.
As I said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), 2 million male jobs have been destroyed since 1979. The new jobs that came in the late 1980s were low-paid jobs in the service sector taken by women. The projection for the next 10 years is that the pattern will continue—more and more full-time jobs for men will be destroyed and the only new jobs will be low-paid, part-time jobs, the overwhelming majority of which will be taken by women.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Short: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished this point.
That pattern is imposing great strains on family life in Britain. I shall tell the House a story of a man in his fifties who came to my advice bureau a little while ago. He handed me a brown envelope and asked me to open it and read its contents. I took out a reference which said that he

was a fine worker—he was a draughtsman. I told him that it was a lovely reference and that he was clearly extremely good at his job.
He started to cry and said that he wanted someone to know that he used to be some good. He told me that he had been made unemployed in his fifties, had not obtained another job and had exhausted his entitlement to unemployment benefit. His wife had a relatively low-paid job, but did not want to give it up and his marriage of 25 years was about to break up. This will be the picture if the Government continue their strategy of using women as low-paid labour against men and destroying full-time jobs.
A group of academics has today produced a report which concludes:
The 'flexible' labour market championed by the Government is creating a new tier of insecure labour—of which unemployment is the most acute form—which is damaging health, sinking people into depression, increasing the chances of marriage break-ups and leading to social isolation…the stress generated by job insecurity was also sufficiently intense to destabilise relations in the family and to precipitate marriage break-up".
The Conservatives claim to be the party of the family, yet they run an economy that is ripping the heart out of many families by using women against men to drag us all down in the labour market.
The issues that we are debating lie at the centre of the major political and economic choices facing the country. Since 1979—

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Ms Short: I promised to give way, so I shall.

Lady Olga Maitland: If the market in Europe is so marvellous for women, why is it that this country is second only to Denmark in respect of having the most women in work? Does the hon. Lady accept that women who take part-time work do so from choice to fit in with their family commitments?

Ms Short: I have heard that point made before and I have already told the hon. Lady that women in Denmark are the best off in terms of earnings as a proportion of male earnings in any European country. Many Tory Members make that point. I shall say only that virtually every woman in Bangladesh from the age of six onwards works. Very high participation rate in the labour market is not a measure of economic development. If there is a high-skill economy, people train and are educated and enter the labour market later. To boast about high participation shows how ignorant the hon. Lady is, as are all her colleagues, about how one achieves a high-quality, high-tech economy.
Since 1979, the Government have adopted an economic strategy of competing through driving down the costs of employment in Britain. Unemployment has grown massively. When the present Government came to power, unemployment was 1.2 million; using the method of counting which was then in force, there are now 4 million unemployed people. All protection for low-paid workers has been stripped away and the European Commission may soon say that that is illegal.
Inequality is much greater in our country, and the gap between rich and poor has grown greatly. Crime has grown, inevitably, in those conditions. Conservative Members should worry about the fate of young, working-class men who cannot gain employment. One in four are unemployed and, on current projections, an even higher proportion will be unemployed in the future.
The strain on families—

Mr. Rod Richards: rose—

Ms Short: I am coming to an end.
The strain on families throughout the country is great. Women have borne the burden of much of that deregulation and wage cutting. The strategy has been a failure. Our economy is a mess. The quality of life is low. We have been less successful than our partners in Europe in generating jobs. Simply, what women want is the chance—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about Spain?

Ms Short: We have the worst record on such matters of all the countries in Europe. The hon. Lady should examine the true historical record, instead of the propaganda that Conservative Members consume.
Women simply want the chance to be equal at work, in public life and in the family. To achieve that, we need a Government who are committed to equality. Instead, we have a Government who claim to support women's equality, but, in practice, oppose all proposals from British organisations or from Europe which would help to deliver equality. It is in the interests of men and women in Britain that we change that situation. The Government's failure is hobbling the British economy and women in the work force.
We need a U-turn from the Government; an admission that their economic strategy has been a terrible tragedy for our country. If they are not big enough to deliver it, women in Britain will vote to get rid of them and will start to put things right.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes, in the week of International Women's Day, that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionaly wide and increasing opportunities underpinned by comprehensive and effective legislation; and calls on the Government to continue to pursue the policies which have made this possible.'.
It is sad that today we should hold a debate on this subject without Jo Richardson, who died recently, because she spoke for the Opposition on women's rights for 11 years, from 1982 to 1993. She campaigned indefatigably for the needs of women and I believe that I speak for everyone in the House when I say that she was much loved and much respected. Her especial interest was in women in lower-paid jobs who were trying to combine work and family responsibilities; and she served as a member of my Department's advisory committee on women's issues. I know that her presence always ensured a lively and stimulating debate. She was a doughty champion of the cause that we are debating today, and she will be sorely missed by everyone in this place.
There have been co-ordinating arrangements for women's issues at ministerial level for some considerable time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out. However, in April 1992, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), became the first Cabinet Minister with responsibility for women's issues. I am proud to follow her in that capacity.
If the country is to be truly competitive and to achieve the highest possible standards, we must recognise the

ability of all our people. Equality of opportunity is a vital principle. Discrimination against women is not only inefficient, but clearly wrong. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will agree with those simple statements.

Mr. Alan Howarth: What my right hon. Friend has just said is absolutely right. Does he agree that it must be as wrong to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexuality as on the grounds of their sex? Will he develop initiatives from his Department to encourage employers to eliminate discrimination and harassment against gay men and lesbians? Is it his view that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 should be amended to make clear beyond doubt that its provisions cover sexuality discrimination?

Mr. Hunt: On 21 February, we had a lengthy, detailed and in-depth debate on the age of consent, when many issues relating to sexuality were raised. I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many Members on both sides of the House. I wish to show that I believe that, in its present form, the Sex Discrimination Act is right and is working. I shall explain why to my hon. Friend and the House.
In 1975, when the Bill was introduced, it was welcomed on both sides. It was recognised that it was an Act much built on the achievements of a Conservative Government and that its principles were wholly in line with Conservative philosophy. I wish that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) would recognise that there are strong views on the subject on both sides of the House. There is great scope—

Mrs. Barbara Roche: rose—

Mr. Hunt: Just one second.
There is great scope for a bipartisan policy. I felt that many of the hon. Lady's comments, which were founded on incorrect statements, sought to trivialise the debate to a considerable degree.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am about to give way to the hon. Lady.
I believe that the Sex Discrimination Act is about creating equality of opportunity for individuals and about giving everyone a fair and equal chance to be judged on their merits and to rise as high as their abilities will allow them in the job that they choose to pursue. It is also about challenging preconceptions which say that a woman cannot do this or that a man cannot do that simply because of their sex. Those are out-of-date attitudes and the Act makes that absolutely clear.

Mrs. Roche: The Secretary of State says that the Conservative party has given rise to much of that legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Will he acknowledge the contribution of my predecessor, Joyce Butler, who was the Member of Parliament for Wood Green until 1979? She was an early pioneer of that legislation and made strenuous attempts to get it into the parliamentary framework.

Mr. Hunt: In the course of the debate, tributes will be paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to all hon. Members who have worked for the cause. I am seeking to point out that, in the past 15 years, there have been considerable achievements for women. The hon.


Member for Ladywood was not doing justice to the debate by denying those achievements. I shall give a few simple facts to illustrate that.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Hunt: Let me give a few simple facts and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
First, more and more women want to work. The economic activity rate for women of working age has increased over the past 10 years from 66 per cent. to 71 per cent. Secondly, more and more women are working. The number of women in employment has risen by 16 per cent., or more than 1 million, over that same period. The number of women in full-time jobs has risen virtually identically with the number of women in part-time jobs—a fact that the hon. Lady did not acknowledge.
Thirdly, more and more women are expected to work in the future. Our projections show that about 80 per cent. of the labour force growth between now and 2006 is likely to come from women. More and more women will be able to contribute their talents in the workplace.
If we compare our record with that of our European partners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, the United Kingdom at present has the second highest proportion of the female population in work in the European Union—65 per cent.—behind Denmark.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment.
Between 1983 and 1991, female employment in the Community as a whole—now the Union—grew by 8 million, and a quarter of that was accounted for by the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has nearly 11.5 million women in paid employment—more than any other member state except Germany; and it is the only member state in the Union where women's unemployment is lower than men's.
That is an impressive record, and it is one of which the Government are proud. But it has not been achieved by chance. Job opportunities are greater here because the Government have steadfastly pursued the right policies.

Mr. Cryer: The Secretary of State said earlier that he wanted to promote some sort of bipartisan policy. Despite his continual sneering and sniping at the minimum wage legislation proposed by the Labour party, which is repeated by his hon. Friends on the Back Benches, does he know that such a measure would immediately benefit more than 2 million women who are paid rock-bottom rotten wages which no Conservative Member would even look at, and that the Government can embark on a bipartisan policy only by recognising the importance of a minimum wage for women?

Mr. Hunt: How can the hon. Gentleman expect me, as Secretary of State for Employment, to endorse a policy that would destroy 2 million jobs? That is what a statutory minimum wage would do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: Just a moment.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) talked about wages. Let us look at the facts, because they

were noticeably absent from the speech by the hon. Member for Ladywood. What is the average wage for women in the United Kingdom? The average weekly gross wage for women is £252.60. What was it in 1979? It was £63. There has been a cash increase of 301 per cent., and an increase in real terms of 54.9 per cent. Women's real wages have grown faster than men's since 1979, and it is about time that Opposition Members recognised that fact.
We have worked to create a labour market in which employers have minimum constraints on the jobs they can offer. We want minimal structural constraints on pay levels, which is why we have abolished wages councils. We want minimal structural constraints on hours of work which is why we are challenging the working time directive before the European Court of Justice. We want minimal extra costs, which is why we oppose the parental leave directive and other extensions of burdens on business.
Unlike some others, we do not have preconceptions about the sort of jobs that should be created, based on the stultified stereotypes of 20 or 30 years ago. We do not assume that a "proper" job lasts 48 or 35 hours a week, or that everybody wants to work full time, or that the service industry is a poor relation to manufacturing industry. We do not assume that women, simply because they are women, cannot work at night.
Those are the old assumptions of an out-of-date, out-of-touch male-dominated society. They are above all to be found in countries that have old-fashioned, highly regulated labour markets.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: Just a moment; let me put this point to the hon. Member for Ladywood. She referred to Europe.
I see that the European Commission has recently threatened Belgium, France, Italy, Greece and Portugal with legal action because those countries still ban women from night work. The United Kingdom swept away such outdated restrictions years ago.
Under the Conservative Government, the United Kingdom labour market has been able to offer a wide range of opportunities, and that has benefited women especially. I recognise that women often want to combine work with family commitments, and need an employer who can offer the necessary flexibility.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give way, on that point?

Mr. Hunt: No.
In the United Kingdom, there is no such thing as a standard working week. There is a wide spread of jobs available, with a whole range of different hours. We have far greater diversity than have other European countries with more highly regulated labour markets. Employers and employees therefore have a better chance of finding the working patterns that suit them both.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: No, I want to make progress.
For example, for most women part-time workers, especially if they have children, part-time work is their preferred option. More than 92 per cent. of part-time working mothers say that they do not want a full-time job.


That is why I am so pleased that Conservatives have created more than 2 million part-time jobs in the past 10 years—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: No, I want to make a little progress.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is he frightened of?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Hunt: I am very pleased that the Conservatives have created more than 2 million part-time jobs in the: past 10 years, and that so many part-timers are women. That is because it suits them. Overall, only 13 per cent. of those working part time would prefer to work full time.

Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: Let me finish my comment first.
We believe that individuals, not Government, should decide their patterns of work.

Ms Short: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that many women with young children want to work part time. What they do not want is rotten wages, no training, no promotion and no access to pensions, or to be sidelined in the labour market for the rest of their lives. That is why full-time rights for part-time workers are crucial to the equality of women in the labour market.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady does not acknowledge the statistics that I have given the House, based on the independent figures produced by my Department, which demonstrate how much women's wages and overall earnings have risen in the past 15 years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am not giving way at the moment.
Of course women need a fair chance to fulfil their potential. Prejudice must be countered. The Government want fair play for women—I cite the English translation of the programme "Chwarae Teg", which I introduced when I was Secretary of State for Wales, in combination with Opportunity 2000 and the Equal Opportunities Commission. We also fund a nationwide campaign, New Horizons for Women, to promote opportunities for women at all levels in the work force and in public appointments—as one of my hon. Friends pointed out.
We fully support the employer-led Opportunity 2000 campaign. The civil service as a whole and many Departments, including my own, are active members. We are spending £45 million on increasing out-of-school child care facilities. We are glad to fund the work of the EOC.
I turn now to the role of the law in underpinning and guaranteeing equality of opportunity. We are fortunate in having the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It is wide-ranging and covers discrimination not only in employment and training but in education and in the provision of goods and services. That goes well beyond any obligations that we have under any EC directive—

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Secretary of State give way on that very point?

Mr. Hunt: No.
Those provisions go well beyond the practice in most member states.
The Act also established the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which the hon. Member for Ladywood referred. As we all know, the EOC's powers include taking up cases against the Government themselves. It would be hard to find a more visible example of independence in action. I do not complain about the EOC's pursuing the statutory role that Parliament gave it, but I believe that its powers and independence make a mockery of suggestions that the United Kingdom is somehow soft in its legislative arrangements for guaranteeing equal opportunities.
The hon. Lady suggested that our equal pay legislation is ineffective and lacks teeth, especially in delivering equal pay for work of equal value. I do not accept that. Equal value claims are recognised throughout Europe as very difficult to tackle, and the United Kingdom does much better than most. Those are not my words. I have a report produced by the European Commission's equal opportunities unit which discussed the difficulties of equal value claims. The report said that there was no case law at all on this subject in France, Luxembourg, Italy and Greece.

Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that the reason why the Secretary of State is not giving way to interventions from women Members is that he has a plane to catch to Detroit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is for the Secretary of State to decide whether he gives way.

Mr. Hunt: It also said—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true?

Mr. Hunt: I am returning to the real subject of this debate.
The report said that the concept of "equal work, equal pay" was not properly defined in Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Luxembourg. I commend the report to the hon. Member for Ladywood. It also said that the United Kingdom was one of the few states where the basic concepts were understood and where case law was extensive.
Our law lays down in detail how equal value claims are to be decided. It gives particular weight to a tribunal receiving a job evaluation report from an independent expert. The hon. Lady will know that the idea of using job evaluation is still very new. The whole idea of one job being equal in value to another is full of difficulty and ambiguity. Different experts take different views. There is room for argument and appeals, and all of that takes time. But the United Kingdom has genuinely tried to make the concept work. I shall explain why.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way in a moment—I am dealing with an important principle.
We have seen more than 100 cases presented to independent experts since 1984. Some of them have been resolved by the tribunals; many more have been settled out of court by the parties concerned. Those cases will have a


knock-on effect on the pay of other workers. I simply say to the hon. Lady, if she would pay attention for a moment, that thousands of women have benefited from employers voluntarily restructuring their pay scales so as to value more highly work which tends to be done by women. We have seen that particularly in the retail sector.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The Secretary of State said that the Government funds the Equal Opportunities Commission. Therefore, why do they not take on board the commission's recommendations with regard to equality? The commission, in its very helpful briefing document, said that the existing law on equality is very complex, the legal procedures take so long and it is virtually impossible for people to obtain legal aid.

Mr. Hunt: I shall deal directly with what I have been discussing with the Equal Opportunities Commission. I acknowledge the work that Kamlesh Bahl and her colleagues in the Equal Opportunities Commission have done in examining the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, and the formal recommendations that they put to the Government.
When I replied to Kamlesh Bahl last July, soon after I became the Secretary of State for Employment, I said that I would be pleased to discuss many of the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposals. We have already had discussions on the Equal Pay Act and I have agreed some changes to speed up equal value cases as far as possible.
I shall consult on further possible changes. I am happy to give the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that assurance. I look forward to more discussions with the Equal Opportunities Commission on some of its proposals on the Sex Discrimination Act. In July, I said that most of the proposals can be either accepted fully or discussed further. I am happy to confirm that.
I do not believe that we should substantially reshape the legislation that we have. As I wrote to the Equal Opportunities Commission in July, I do not believe that that would help those who have to use the legislation. By and large, it has served us well. Important questions of interpretation have been settled by the courts over the past 15 years. More questions are still at issue, either here or before the European Court of Justice. Starting again from scratch would be a massive task, and I suspect that it would be of little use to most people. That is the extent of my commitment. I am happy that I will be discussing this further with the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As the Secretary of State said that he thoroughly approves of women taking their cases to industrial tribunals, will he congratulate the two Scottish women who won their equal value case against Scottish Power last week? Will he also deplore the fact that it took them four years to do so? Will he commit himself to improving the legislation so that such cases can be dealt with much more speedily?

Mr. Hunt: I am very happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance, because I want to see such delays removed and the whole procedure speeded up. I also commend the many cases and awards that are reported in our newspapers. This morning, I saw that a girl won £24,000 in a discrimination

case. The United Kingdom has a strong and comprehensive framework of anti-discrimination legislation and I believe that the decisions of tribunals confirm that.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Before my right hon. Friend leaves his discussion of the law of this country, will he say that the Government have no place whatever for a consideration of quotas in this matter of equal opportunities? Of course, it works both ways—equal opportunities for men and equal opportunities for women. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) made no mention of the Opposition's position on quotas, although at their last party conference they put in place a quota system for the selection of their parliamentary candidates.

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the general theme of this debate will be a clear message that if the United Kingdom wants to be truly competitive in a fairly tough competitive world, it must recognise the abilities of all of its people, men and women. That is why we need equal opportunities and that is why I moved the amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call any hon. Members in this debate, I must tell the House that no fewer than 22 Members wish to catch the Chair's eye, of which 15 are hon. Ladies. Although there is no time limit on speeches, a little self-discipline would be of some assistance.

Ms Mildred Gordon: When my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) raised a point of order about the Secretary of State not giving way because he was in a hurry to catch a plane to the United States, the Secretary of State had nothing to say. He was kind and polite enough to write a letter to me apologising because he may not be able to stay and listen to my speech because he has to get to the United States and must therefore leave the Chamber soon after his speech.
When we are debating such an important issue, which affects more than half the population of this country—it affects not only women but their partners and children—it seems to be the wrong occasion for the Minister to race off. I do not want to take advantage of his courtesy in writing to me but the point must be made that it is the wrong time for him to leave. He should listen to what is said today because it is very important to all women.
Although the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was a huge advance, it never worked as well as we hoped. It takes nearly three years for the average case to come to a hearing, and one case in particular took more than eight years. The Act that runs in tandem, the Equal Pay Act 1970, was followed by a huge regrading of jobs so that men who were doing the same work were given a new title and paid more than women. A tightening and an alteration is needed to make these two laws more effective.
The Secretary of State twisted the figures. He said that the average wage for women when compared with that for men had increased, and that is true. However, the average wage for women is still 30 per cent. lower than the average wage for men. For part-time workers—most women now are in part-time employment—the hourly pay for women is half the hourly pay for men in full-time employment. That is a huge gap and a huge difference.

Mr. Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in accepting that I have to talk to the American Administration at the jobs summit in Detroit. I apologise to the House for having to leave.
Does the hon. Lady accept that the real growth in the hourly rate for the female working population has been 55.9 per cent. since 1979, against 40.4 per cent. for the male population? Does she acknowledge that the rate has risen considerably faster?

Ms Gordon: I do not know how the Secretary of State arrived at those figures, but we must take into account the lowering of the value of money.
The fact is that the average wage for women is still half that for men. The gap is still enormous. If there has been some increase, that is all to the good. That does not mean that the situation is satisfactory—it means that there has been some improvement, but there is still a long way to go.
The vast numbers of women who have young children and who cannot leave their children have not been taken into account. They can neither find nor afford child care and they must do work at home, such as threading beads and painting toys for a pittance. It is disgusting pay, and there is no regulation of it and no help for such women. What is happening to them is largely hidden from sight.
There are 6 million women in this country who are on poverty wages. Most of the poor people in this country are women—women on low pay, single mothers, women who have been divorced and women pensioners. We must do something about that because we are not content to go on being at the bottom of the pile, regardless of the work we do, the hours we put in and our efforts and abilities.
The Government want women to be low-waged. They see their value as a pool of low-waged workers and they think that that will make the country more competitive. That is false reasoning, and other countries do not feel that way. When the Government passed the iniquitous Child Support Act, they said that they would give a £15 disregard of maintenance to women on low wages and family credit. This would encourage women to accept work at lower wages than they otherwise would take. What kind of distorted thinking is that?
The Government do not want to improve the status, lifestyle and income of women. They want to force women to accept lower wages than they otherwise would do—in other words, a little bit above starvation starvation level.
Women are discriminated against not only in wages but in pensions. It was announced in the Budget that the pensionable age for women would be raised to 65 by 2020. The Government want to equalise pensions, but instead of allowing men to retire early if they wish or perhaps having a flexible retirement age, which both men and women might want, women are again penalised.
It is true that women had an advantage, but if we look at pensions in total we find that only 15 per cent. of women earn the full state pension in their own right. The average occupational pension earned by women is £30 a week, whereas for men it is £61. Again, we see that it is almost half—women get half the hourly wage and half the occupational pension. It seems that women often receive only half of what men get. That does not mean that men should get less—it means that women should get more.
What happens when a woman is divorced by her husband, as often happens? It may be that her husband had a low-paid job when they got married. The woman stayed at home, brought up the children, put meals on the table,

washed his clothes and ensured that her husband was well-dressed. She helped him to work well and to improve his position at work. By the time they get divorced—he may be after a younger woman—the husband may be earning a great deal, and he would be entitled to a good occupational pension.
If they get divorced, the wife gets nothing at all for the work that she did in their partnership. That needs to be addressed. In cases of divorce, women should be entitled to half the value of the occupational pension until the time of the divorce. I have had many bitter letters from women about that, and the law must address it.
The carers of severely disabled people get some pension credits, but women get no pension credits for the years that they spend at home rearing children. Those years, apparently, are considered to be of no value to society. If we want older women to have proper pensions and not be the poorest in society, they should be given pension credits for the years of unpaid work in the home. Those years are just as important to society as the years spent in paid work.
That brings me to the whole matter of women's unpaid work, which is unrecognised, unvalued and considered to be almost invisible. However, it is the basis of the economy of the country. If one considers the economy of any country as a pyramid, it is based on the great pedestal of unpaid work which is done by women in the home and voluntary work.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Gordon: I am not going to give way. The Secretary of State did not give way, and Mr. Deputy Speaker has asked that we make our speeches short because 22 women—or, at least, 22 people—have asked to speak. I hope that the hon. Lady will have a chance to speak.
The economy of the country is based on the pedestal of the unpaid work that women do. I have introduced a Bill on the matter, and I shall continue to press that women's unpaid work be counted in the economic statistics and the GNP of this country. The value of all the work that women do in the home and in the voluntary sector would then become evident to everybody.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Ms Gordon: I said that I was not going to give way.
Until women's unpaid work is properly valued, their work outside the home will not be valued and employers will continue to offer them low wages.
That brings me to the matter of increments. When I was a teacher, the National Union of Teachers negotiated for women the right to one increment for every three years spent raising a family when she returned to work. I always felt that it should have been one increment for every year. I believe that some banking organisations have a similar scheme.
The years that women spend at home bringing up families, the organisational skills which they learn and the value of rearing the new generation should be recognised. Women should not be considered to have wasted those years when they return to work, but to have enriched their value to any future employer. They should get incremental increases and not go back to work on lower pay than when they left to raise their families.
In other words, women should be enabled to take a full part in the life of this country, to live decently and to have decent pay. We feel our inequality in every way. A woman


has only to want to go to the toilet in a public building; she will see men whizzing by while she is queuing. The women's toilet is always the most inaccessible. Then we know that we are second-class citizens.
We have only to consider agism in Britain, which is always directed first and foremost at women, to know that we are second-class citizens. Studies have proved that, when children go to school, teachers give more minutes of attention per day to boys than to girls. In training, we get a worse deal. All down the line, women are treated as second-class citizens.
It is time that the debt that this country owes to women was recognised. It is time that the Government were forced to recognise it. Women demand a better deal. History has shown us that we do not get any improvement unless we fight for it—and fight for it we will. We want a better life, we want better recognition, we want equality and we want better pay.

6 pm

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I hope that the House will not mind if I indulge myself by falling back on my previous occupation for a few moments at the opening of my remarks. I hope to do so briefly, and for the only time in my speech.
In 1948, the incomparable Fanny Blankers Koen, who won four Olympic gold medals at the 1948 Olympic games, confronted a newspaper headline in a Dutch newspaper after winning her second medal. It simply read "Fastest women in the world is an expert cook". The report said:
This amazing Dutch athlete who holds the world record for the high jump, the long jump and the hundred metres has gained an Olympic double—the first women ever to achieve that feat. But at home she is just an ordinary housewife. She is an expert cook and darns socks with artistry. Her greatest love next to racing is housework.
We have travelled far, thank goodness, in the past 46 years, although it is still not uncommon to switch on the television and listen to a sporting event in which the commentators witter on about the hairstyles of the women competing rather than about the ability of the women competitors.
The history of female involvement in a raft of sports such as track and field has been one of attrition and determination, and of women forcing their way to the table. When they have got there, their contribution to those sports has been enormous. It has often transcended sport, set the trends in other socio-economic activities and done much to flatten misconceptions and prejudices about female work, status and physical ability.

Mr. John Maxton: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards suggesting that women in sport are more equal now. Can he explain to the House why Sally Gunnell is paid considerably less than Linford Christie for taking part in exactly the same athletic meetings?

Mr. Coe: I have been away from the sport since 1989. I could not tell the hon. Gentleman what the pay structure of British sport and British athletics is. If what he says is the case, I certainly do not condone it.
My wife is an equestrienne. She is a three-day eventer—a discipline which was originally designed as a test of

the gentleman soldier, but which is now firmly in female hands. Men and women compete on equal terms even though women were barred until 1968 from any British equestrian Olympic team. It was believed that the event was simply too taxing for female riders.
In 1990, my wife won the sport's most prestigious event—the Badminton horse trials—fending off the world's best male riders. She took her place in the record book alongside the likes of Lucinda Green, who has a record six victories, Virginia Leng, arguably our greatest rider, Mark Phillips and Mark Todd. It is important not to fall into the trap of over-legislation or over-regulation in the pursuit of equal access. It is important for women to continue to make progress in sport, if they want to, free from ignorance about physical status. However, that is a cultural process.
Physiologists and practitioners of other disciplines in sport science recognise that women are better suited than men to many sports and have built-in physiological advantages, certainly in ultra-distance events. The modern sport of triathlon—the amalgam of swimming, cycling and running—is an event at which women compete on equal terms with men, and even surpass them. It is also known that under conditions of severe cold or heat women will outlast men. That is probably best summed up by saying that, if Captain Scott had been a woman, he would probably have made it.

Ms Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue in women's equality. I certainly agree with him that women have had a terrible time attempting to break into sport. Does he agree that the current practice of sex testing for female athletes—which gives the impression that, if a female athlete has competed and won, she might be a man so she must be tested to check that she is not—is extremely demeaning to women and ought to be abolished forthwith?

Mr. Coe: The hon. Lady has raised an important point. I should declare an interest here. I am a member of the medical commission of the International Olympic Committee. The issue she raises has exercised better medical brains than mine for many years. The hon. Lady is right. It is a major problem. We are considering ways of determining sex. Sex is important in competition, not simply in terms of making sure that a female who wins an event is a female, but the reverse. It is important to make sure that men are not competing in female events, which would discriminate against the final result simply on arguments of ability.
That is quite enough sporting parallel. I am having far too much fun. Suffice it to say that sport provides, and will continue to provide, an interesting sociological model of female achievement, often against the odds and almost always against the historical tide of perception.
However, let us be wary of the way in which, in recent years, the equal opportunities agenda has often been so grotesquely—and, in terms of women, so damagingly—hijacked. For many years, I was a member of a weightlifting club in the London borough of Hackney. It was an excellent club, funded by a very good adult education programme.
One night, a group of women from the local authority came into the gymnasium. They simply wanted to close it. The women did not want to close the club because we prevented women from joining. We could not have done that. They did not want to close it because we would have


been unpleasant or antagonistic to women if they had wanted to join the club. They tried to close it simply because women chose not to use the club.
I also use the example of a constituent who applied for a job in an adjoining London borough. She was told that she had not got the job. That did not come as a major shock, but she found out later that the person who had got the job not only did not have the right qualifications but did not have qualifications at all. On appeal, my constituent was told in no uncertain terms that, if the woman in question had had the same opportunities as my constituent and had obtained the qualifications in the first place, she would almost certainly have got the job.
I also fall back to my time as vice-chairman of the Sports Council. I was visited by a group of distressed parents from a south London school. They came to me to raise their concerns that the school in question had decided to put all competing school teams together as mixed events. The first time that the mixed football team played the local school, it lost 26-nil. The team that subsequently won had no significant sporting or educational gratification from that. The team that lost felt significantly dismayed. When that matter was raised—in the darker, sadder days of the old Greater London council and ILEA—an inquiry took place, and the headmaster and the PE staff were all congratulated on upholding ILEA's equal opportunities policy.
In identifying those excesses, however, we should not pretend that all in the garden of equal opportunity is rosy. Although it is fair to point out that, in the professions, remuneration is normally related to the job irrespective of gender, it is certainly more difficult for women to reach board level, for instance, in the average company.

Ms Short: Never!

Mr. Coe: Recent studies show that only 1 per cent. of women reach positions of top management, only 4 per cent. reach positions of senior management, and only 27 per cent. of women work in any management capacity. Whether that is due to institutional prejudice, to the discontinuity in women's careers or to the reluctance of many women to assume positions of responsibility because their families come first in their order of priorities, is not a question that I choose to explore any further in the confines of the debate.
Much has been done by the Government to promote equality of opportunity in the workplace. Women should be able to pursue their chosen path without obstacle to achievement and to success. There are effective ways in which women can pursue grievances. The complaints system is accessible, and generally more comprehensive than those in most parts of the European Community, through industrial tribunals. There is, as recent cases have shown, a remedy in law for those people who have suffered sexual harrassment, and a protection against subsequent victimisation.
There are more training opportunities for women—more special schemes to help women back into the workplace or to take up jobs that have not normally been associated with women. There are now more than 100,000 more women in higher education than there were in 1979. They now account for a higher proportion of all people attending universities—46 per cent. today, compared with 42 per cent. 15 years ago. Cornwall college, an excellent

college of higher education in my constituency, has even better statistics: nearly 51 per cent. of students in the college are women.
The Government have strengthened the United Kingdom's traditional legal framework, which combats discrimination. In employment, it provides equal rights for men and women in recruitment, training and promotion. The law also ensures equality in pay and contracts of employment. Since the mid-1980s, the law in relation to the latter has been significantly strengthened to allow equal pay for work of equal value.
Women now make up nearly 50 per cent. of the UK labour force. More than 2 million more women have entered jobs since 1983, and the number of women who work full time in the work force has increased by nearly a fifth—all much to do with the supply-side changes to the labour market.
There are aspects in which the Government can do more. I should like some of the Department of Employment's excellent work in promoting conditions for women to return to work to be widened to embrace the advantages for providing flexible conditions and practices, and the greater provision of child care facilities. In that respect, the civil service should be singled out and commended for its range of options, including flexible work patterns and child care help, and for cutting the distinction between part-time and full-time work.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As to child care, does my hon. Friend agree that flexibility is the key? It is no good having workplace nurseries if that involves taking a child a long way on a tube train at a busy time. It is much better to give the woman the choice of what she may have by some method such as coupons, but not to insist on workplace nurseries.

Mr. Coe: My hon. Friend is right, and I doubt whether any reasonable person would argue with that. That is why, when the scheme Opportunity 2000 was launched by the Prime Minister in 1991, from its very inception flexible patterns of work, which increase the quality and quantity of employment opportunities for women, were at the centre of its aims. When the campaign was launched in 1991, 61 organisations pledged increased opportunities to women. Employers covering 25 per cent. of the work force now belong to the scheme—a remarkable transformation in only three years.
Opportunities in employment are dependent on opportunities in education, but enhancing education is not simply about equipping or reskilling a work force to underpin our manufacturing base. Enhancing the role of education is inextricably linked to a more embracing issue—the position of women in society. Overwhelming evidence shows that when education is widely available to women, average family size drops sharply and many women marry later, start families later and have better career structures. The evidence linking the lowly status of women to population explosion and acute poverty and under-developed economies is overwhelming.
The United Nations Population Fund statistics show clearly that there is a strong reverse correlation between the literacy rates of adult women and total fertility rates. I recognise that that is straying into an international perspective that is not within the scope of the debate or the framework of the motion, but there have been few


empirical studies of the effect of legislation on discrimination, and those that have been conducted are less than conclusive.

Mrs. Gillan: It may help my hon. Friend to feel more comfortable with the areas into which he is straying to know that it is International Women's Day.

Hon. Members: It was on Tuesday.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is in the motion.

Mrs. Gillan: It was on Tuesday.

Mr. Coe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
In the present climate of opinion, it seems reasonable to assume that, as the number of women acquitting themselves with distinction in high office and in other fields of activity continues to increase as it has in recent years, the prospects will improve for all women with ability. I do not believe that women either want or need positive discrimination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are quite capable of succeeding on their own merits.

Mrs. Ray Michie: When the then Home Secretary, now Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, moved the Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Bill in the House of Commons on 26 March 1975, one year short of 20 years ago, he said—

Mrs. Currie: Nineteen years ago.

Mrs. Michie: One year short of 20 years ago.
Lord Jenkins said:
The unequal status of women in our society is a social evil of great antiquity. Its causes are complex and rooted deeply in tradition, custom and prejudice. Its effects create individual injustice and waste the potential talents of half our population at a time when more than ever before we need to mobilise the skills and abilities of all our citizens."—[Official Report, 26 March 1975; Vol. 889, c. 511.]
Much of that still pertains today.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, together with the Equal Opportunities Commission, sought to secure equality of opportunity, equal pay and equal status for men and women. In the 19 years since it was set up, the Equal Opportunities Commission can claim a number of achievements, including independent taxation for married women, recognition at law that sexual harrassment and pregnancy are sex discrimination, and so on.
One of the EOC's priorities—I agree with it—is a fair deal and equal treatment at work for part-timers. According to evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Employment by the Equal Opportunities Commission—I refer to the Committee's report of 7 July 1993—
Research shows that at a number of points in the life-cycle, many women would prefer to work part-time in order to cope with caring responsibilities, and many women and some men continue to prefer part-time work for part of their working lives. Their dilemma is that, in order to do so, many will have to accept work which disadvantages them in comparison with full-time employees.
That is the point that we want to stress. Despite the House of Lords' ruling on redundancy and unfair dismissal rights, there is still a great deal to be done.

Ms Short: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is astonishing that the Secretary of State's speech included no

reference to the Law Lords' ruling, and that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all about what he intends to do to embody that ruling in legislation?

Mrs. Michie: It is indeed astonishing. It was as though the right hon. Gentleman did not know about the ruling, or wanted to run away from it. Perhaps we shall get an answer from the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Does the hon. Lady think it astonishing also that the Secretary of State made no mention of the contribution to the economy that women make by way of their unpaid employment?

Mrs. Michie: We were all astonished by the Secretary of State's failure to mention a number of matters.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two facts. Why, for example, in United Kingdom primary schools, 81 per cent. of whose teachers are women, are only 49 per cent. of heads female? In the case of my own country, Scotland—

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Mrs. Michie: I give way to my compatriot.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the representative of another Scottish constituency, I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. The hon. Lady's figures are slightly wrong. In fact, 46 per cent. of secondary school teachers in Scotland are women, but only 3 per cent. are head teachers.

Mrs. Michie: I am grateful for those figures. I was referring to United Kingdom numbers.
In Scotland, women make up 45 per cent. of the work force, yet they are concentrated in a very narrow range of activities, and are absent from all but a handful of Scotland's top jobs. Why are there so few woman surgeons in the national health service, for example—only about 3.2 per cent.? Of approximately 16 cardiologists in Glasgow, only one is a woman.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Michie: Yes, but for the last time, as I must proceed.

Lady Olga Maitland: On the question of female consultant surgeons, does the hon. Lady agree that the situation will change in the future? Women applying for consultancies today started their medical training long ago, when there were far fewer in the profession and there was therefore a smaller number available for these jobs.

Mrs. Michie: I do not accept that. There has been an enormous improvement in the number of women going to university to study medicine. In fact, the proportion is now 50 per cent., and those people are qualifying. I know of women who try for consultant surgical jobs but cannot get them. If hon. Members will bear with me, I shall try to show why this is happening.
I believe that this pattern of employment prevails because of the inability in the health service, as in other areas of employment, to cater for women who have children and family commitments. Women who take time out for maternity leave lose their place on the training and promotion ladder. That is what happens in the case of positions for consultant surgeons. Female doctors often have to find their own locums to cover maternity and annual leave, and, with minimum staffing levels in many


hospitals now, there is a reluctance to pay for locum cover. This is happening more and more in the new trust hospitals, and it is very worrying for women.
Many female graduates in medicine opt for sessional work in, say, cytology screening, for day sessions in anaesthetics, or for general practice part-time work that does not involve on-call night duty. I am not denigrating those sections of the profession; I am simply saying that many women have to go into such areas although they would rather pursue another aspect of the medical world.
The situation in the legal profession is similar. In Scotland women now make up 30 per cent. of the total membership of the Law Society, compared with only 2 per cent. in 1957. That is a considerable improvement. In the past two years, approximately 55 per cent. of those admitted as solicitors were women. That is good. But only four of the 50 members of the council of the Law Society of Scotland are women. Of the 91 full-time sheriffs, only six are women. 'There are no female High Court judges, although, happily, there is one temporary—I do not know how long she will be temporary. There are only five female QCs out of approximately 75 practising seniors.
Until very recently, a female partner in a law firm who decided to have a family was out. She could not be a part-time partner. Fortunately, that is slowly changing. There is now such a thing as a part-time female partner in a law firm.
I have used those examples to reinforce the need for far greater job market flexibility for women, for part-time working with proper pay and for job sharing for both men and women in all kinds of work. Unless this matter is addressed, the economy in particular will be denied access to the vast range of intelligence, abilities and skills represented by the female work force. I am convinced that the country will end up with a stressed-out female population who try to juggle all their commitments in terms of family care, home care and jobs.
It was never thought that sex discrimination legislation would be the whole answer. It had to be accepted by all institutions, employers and trade unions, and, at the same time, there had to be a profound change in attitudes and actions. Of course there is room for the voluntary approach, which has been referred to, but, inevitably, that approach has its limitations.
As we have heard, the Government support initiatives such as Opportunity 2000, whose aim is to improve the position of women at work in the United Kingdom and to promote good practice among employers. I understand that 61 organisations are now members of Opportunity 2000, but they represent only a quarter of the work force. What about the rest? What about the vast majority of women who work, particularly in the service industries?
We need enlightened employment practices and women-friendly terms and conditions of service. The Government need to encourage the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission in promoting good practice among employers. To do that together with all its other tasks, it must be well resourced.
Although child care is not strictly part of the sex discrimination legislation, and may be more appropriate to a debate on family law, it is extremely important. Good employers, whether large or small, should offer employees who are due to return to work after maternity leave various types of help.
I commend some good employers for helping their employees, before they return to work, to find and choose

child care that will best suit the circumstances of the mother and the child. They are helped to decide between a child minder, nanny or nursery; if it is to be a nursery, they help her to choose whether it should be a private, council-run or workplace nursery. The best companies send in someone with expert knowledge on what is available for the returner to work.
Everybody should be offered a short returning-to-work course that advises on balancing home commitments and work, and builds up a support network for working mothers. We all know that mothers have lost the support network of their families. The course should also identify strategies to make better use of mothers' time and, above all, help them to deal with feelings of guilt and anxiety, which often overwhelm a mother returning to work. She is returning to work because she either wants to or has to, and we should make it as easy as possible for her to do so.
Being a working mother can have positive benefits for a woman, as it gives her greater independence and access to adult stimulation, and she is often better company for her children and their father. She can also bring positive benefits to the workplace, where she shows an increased sense of responsibility, sensitivity and maturity. Many working mothers become good managers, good negotiators and good counsellors.
What can the Government do for the returning-to-work mother? First, they can ensure that good quality, affordable child care is available, including pre-school and after-school care. Without that, "equal opportunity" becomes a meaningless phrase. Affordability is a key component, because the average woman's earnings are still nearly 30 per cent. lower than the average male wage. I therefore endorse the Equal Opportunities Commission's call for a family policy to complement legislation on equal treatment.
In supporting this motion, I make a special plea for part-time workers, proper conditions, good child care and a new single statute to bring together the law, which is spread over a number of Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and legal decisions. It is a nightmare. That would help employers and individuals to recognise and understand their rights and obligations.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches on bringing the debate to the Floor of the House. I agree with them that it is long overdue and I am delighted that they managed to get the men in their party under control once and for all and got their own way by putting the debate forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I see that hon. Ladies have a sprinkling of the boys with them to support the motion.
I found attractive the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) to recognise women's unpaid work. I have contributed to my household for many years without receiving a penny for it and the thought that I may get credit for my unpaid work warms my heart greatly. I am sure that it would also warm the heart of the Secretary of State who, sadly, has had to leave us, because it would, in one fell swoop, remove 644,000 people from the unemployment register as they would no longer be deemed unemployed.
I found it hard to recognise the terms of reference within which the hon. Lady made her speech. Had we read it between the wars, it might have been relevant, but we have made a great deal of progress since those days.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) was extremely selective in her opening speech between regulations that she wishes to see introduced from Europe and those that she wants kept out. I was watching the reactions on the Opposition Benches when the Secretary of State was discussing the provisions that allow women to work at night.
Several of our neighbours in the European Union may have proceedings started against them because they do not allow women to work at night. The hon. Lady appeared to agree with that; she was nodding, as were several other Opposition Members. I cannot believe that she would seek to fetter the freedom of choice of women to work in the evening. I think particularly of the wonderful ladies who look after us in the Tea Room, restaurants and bars in this place, who want that freedom to work in the evening.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend touched on a most important point about the right of women to choose to work in the evenings and during the night, particularly if they are nurses. Does she agree that one reason why women find that attractive and helpful is that it is much easier for them to get child care cover at home, particularly if their husbands can help out?

Mrs. Gillan: That is an extremely helpful point. I have friends who positively want to work in the evening because they can leave their small children with their husbands whom they feel they can trust implicitly.
The whole framework of the debate shows that the Labour party has, once again, got the wrong end of the stick.

Ms Eagle: rose—

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I am trying to make progress.
The way in which the motion is framed is extremely negative. It says:
women…face discrimination in all aspects of their lives".
That is not true. It fails to recognise the great progress that we have made in this century, particularly in the past decade. It rehearses tired, worn-out policies and attitudes that should have been consigned to the rubbish bin of history a long time ago.
Nothing illustrates that better than a subject on which Opposition Members were strangely silent—the positive discrimination to get women into Parliament. Hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but resolution 417 reported in the Labour party's "Conference Arrangements Committee Report 1993"—only last year—said that in future there would be
women only shortlists in 50 per cent. of the seats where a sitting Labour MP was not standing for re-election.

Ms Jean Corston: Can the hon. Lady explain why the Prime Minister saw to it that Conservative

central office is imposing a requirement whereby 50 per cent. of Conservative candidates for the next election will be women?

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for that useful intervention, which enables me to point out to Opposition Members that in your case it is a quota and in ours a target, and that we expect our women to get there on merit. What an insult to force all-women lists on 50 per cent. of the Labour-held seats at the next election. What they are really saying is that women are not good enough to do it on their own, that the little women need a helping hand. It is a helping hand which I do not need. Neither do the lady Members who sit on the Opposition Benches.
Would you like to be regarded as the token women on your Benches because you are there as part of some quota?

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Lady that she should address the Chair?

Mrs. Gillan: I feel passionately about this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and am being carried away. I apologise and will try to remain in order.
Do they want to be considered—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes, of course I will give way.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when Labour Members voted against some of the women, it did not stop their leader putting them on the Front Bench?

Mrs. Gillan: I remember that very well. I think that it was called the "tea room rebellion" by the men. It strengthens my argument, and I thank my hon. Friend for that timely reminder of the goings-on in the Tea Room in the House.
Would Opposition Members like to be regarded as token women, because they are part of some quota? I do not think so. Neither Madam Speaker nor you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is in her position because you are part of some positive discrimination quota. You are there because you are the best people for the job. I am forced to admit, with some reluctance as I do not agree with quotas, that had you been part of a quota, it would have been extremely successful in both cases, but I do not think that it would have done anything for your self-esteem or for this place, because it would have been reflected in the behaviour of hon. Members who are very tough judges of the Chair's performance.
Not one woman hon. Member was elected because of positive discrimination.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I am making progress.
They got here on merit. I am sure, however, that hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative Benches and perhaps on the Opposition Benches, will have a very different view of the women who enter Parliament as Labour Members after the next election. They will have been selected by methods outlined by the Labour party, and they will be the token women, forced on constituencies by reason of their sex.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No.
The Labour party is into tokenism. As I looked at the Order Paper today, to read the motion put down by the Opposition, I noticed that six hon. Members were supporting the motion. I glanced at the motions that had been prepared for the six Opposition days that we have so far had this year. The token woman, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), was one of the six hon. Members supporting the motion on each of the other Opposition days. On two days, there were women's issues, and the list of supporters included another woman, making four men and two women, the maximum number of women until today. Today, equality has come over the Labour party in a rush. We have three girls and three boys proposing the motion—even numbers; extremely twee.
I just want to point out that there is no sex discrimination, positive or otherwise, on the Government side of the House. The Conservative party put down its amendment to the motion today under the names of its top people.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman—sorry, hon. Lady—give way? [Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend. I wonder if I really should speak in this debate, after that. We hear all this bluster from the Opposition, criticising the Tories. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, while it is all very well to mention the suffragettes, the Pankhursts were Tories?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Pankhursts left the Liberal party when it refused to put women's suffrage into the 1884 Act. They joined the Conservatives and we got it through.

Ms Eagle: rose—

Mrs. Gillan: I have given way enough, thank you. I thank my hon. Friends for those two very useful interventions.

Dr. Lynne Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Lady says that there is no discrimination in the Conservative party, why has she allowed interventions from men on her own Benches, but only one intervention from women Members on the Opposition Benches?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order but an intervention.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to set the record straight, Sylvia Pankhurst was a socialist.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will recognise what are points of order and what are not.

Mrs. Gillan: I gave way to one Opposition Member. Her intervention was totally inaccurate, so I felt that I would give way only to my hon. Friends who have proved very helpful to the speech that I am trying to make.
Let us look at the real, up-to-date picture of women. Discrimination in any area is intolerable, whether it is against men or women, or on grounds of colour, creed or disability. As we have grown in knowledge and broadened our education, we have come to realise that it has no place in a civilised society.
There are three keys to eradicating discrimination: education, example and effective legislation. The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 provide the legislative framework. The Government watch

carefully for ways in which they can improve the legislation, and will continue to do so. However, we must guard against over-zealous interpretation of regulations and legislation that may eventually work against women, particularly in the workplace.
I read with some pleasure an article in The Times of 9 March entitled:
285,000 women to gain from change in maternity pay".
Excellent news, I thought. But my heart fell as I read that a spokesman for the Confederation of British Industry had condemned the measure, saying:
This is a social cost and should not be transferred solely to the employer.
He added that some employers might be discouraged from taking on female employees.
It reminded me of the days when I used to work outside this place and take on employees. It would be different today if I were considering a man and woman of equal qualifications and status, because I would have to think about the on-costs to my business. Those on-costs would sow a seed of doubt in my mind. That consideration may be sufficient to prejudice women against getting the jobs they deserve and for which they are qualified.
Over-protectionism can work against the very group in society for which we are seeking parity. I know that the Government will guard against that. Time has moved on, and in many ways the real enemy is prejudice; that is what we need to fight.
In the past week, I have spoken to more than 100 women. Some are colleagues here, some are friends, some are officials and some are former workmates. In virtually every single case, they attested that, although 10, 15 or 20 years ago, there was discrimination against them in the workplace, they now feel that it is plain prejudice and preconceptions of which sex fits the job.
A private secretary in the civil service told me that some men still think that she is a shorthand typist. A woman doctor friend told me that she is often taken to be a nurse or a telephonist or receptionist in the casualty department. Strange though it may sound, I have suffered from prejudice and the preconceived idea that the role of a Member of Parliament has been traditionally male. Only the other day, a caller refused to talk to me and insisted on being put through to my boss, Mr. Gillan.
The difference between discrimination and prejudice is important and we already have good legislation to cover genuine cases of discrimination. We must remember, however, that discrimination can work both ways. In a recent case in the Northern Ireland High Court, McConomy v. Croft Inns Ltd., the plaintiff was made to leave a public house that stipulated smart and casual dress. The plaintiff was asked to leave because he was sporting a pair of earrings. The plaintiff was a man and the High Court found in his favour, and rightly so, because a woman wearing a pair of earrings would have been served. That was an example of discrimination working against men.
Cases of discrimination should not be trivial. In a recent case—Automotive Products v. Peake—an employer operated a rule that female employees could leave five minutes before the men and was taken to court by the men who said that it was not fair and discriminatory that they should be asked to work five minutes longer than the women. The employer said that it was a matter of stopping overcrowding when the workers were leaving the workplace. In the judgment, the Court of Appeal judge said:


It was not discrimination for mankind to treat womankind with the courtesy and chivalry that we have been taught are right in society.
The law recognises the fundamental difference between discrimination and prejudice and, in this day and age, we must guard more against prejudice.
As a woman Member of Parliament, I am naturally concerned with women's issues, but not to the exclusion of all other issues. I find it strange that so far we have heard very little reference to, for example, the exploitation and degradation of women in pornography, for example, or to such issues as access to education and training, domestic violence, wrongful working practices, access to child care, women's choice over their own bodies and the safety of women. Many of those issues are of paramount importance, but in a motion that celebrates International Women's Day, the Opposition have chosen to highlight political differences and political issues without addressing some of the real issues that affect women in the United Kingdom today.
I certainly want to increase the number of women who move into the highest echelons of politics, business, industry science, sport—virtually every aspect of life—and, as I said, we need examples and role models. I see no reason why any of my women colleagues in the House cannot act as a role Model for women who wish to become politicians. Nothing in this society impedes our progress. We have many role models.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was interested only in singling out lawyers and medics as a touchstone for how successful women can be. That is a crying shame because it ignores many successful women in many walks of life. What about our British astronaut, Helen Sharman? What about our Queen—Elizabeth? What about Stella Rimington who runs MI5? What about Val Strachan, the chairman of the board of Customs and Excises? What about Barbara Mills, our Director of Public Prosecutions?
Let me name a few women who are successful despite the terrible picture painted by the Opposition. What about Anita Roddick of the Body Shop or Kathleen O'Donovan, who at 35 became financial director of BTR? What about Prue Leith, Mary Archer, and our hotelier Anouska Hempel? What about our television journalists? We should look at what Kate Adie has achieved. What about our pop singers such as Annie Lennox, our designers, such as Zandra Rhodes, our sportswomen—Sally Gunnell, Sharron Davies and the golfer Laura Davies? What about our lawyers, Rose Heilbron to name but one; our writers—Iris Murdoch, Ruth Rendell and Jilly Cooper—I could continue.
I recommend that Labour hon. Ladies look at the 1993 edition of "The Best of British Women". I do not recognise some of the archaic pictures that are being painted by the Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Gillan: I am coming to the end of my speech and I do not feel that Opposition Members have much to contribute.
All those women demonstrate, as do tens of thousands of others in all walks of life, that what women require—and what the Government give them—is equal opportunity.

Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that long list of distinguished women. I wonder whether perhaps she had forgotten probably the most successful female in this century in Britain, our noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.

Mrs. Gillan: How could anyone forget Baroness Thatcher? We may be dealing with a whole generation of voters who have never lived under the misery of a Labour Government, but a colleague of mine told me of his wife's visit to a local school. When the young children asked her who was Prime Minister and she replied, "John Major", they did not believe her because they did not realise that a man could be Prime Minister.
We must remember that positive discrimination in favour of women can also be discrimination against men. Women will and do compete on equal terms. We shall win on equal terms, and victory will be all the sweeter.

Ms Janet Anderson: Somewhere in that rather patronising speech, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) denigrated the Labour party for positive policies to get more women selected. Is she aware that her right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is not with us this evening, presumably because she is, at this moment, scurrying around the country to try to persuade Conservative associations to select women?
I now turn to what the Prime Minister said—

Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Anderson: No. The hon. Lady did not give way, so I am not going to give way.
At the launch of Opportunity 2000, the Prime Minister said:
At present, there is a social revolution going on in the role of women in our society…Not only is this revolution right socially, it is right economically…Yet even apart from the economics there is a yet stronger argument for accepting that the change in the role of women is fundamentally right.
He continued:
Why should"—
as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) reminded us—
half our population go through life like a hobbled horse in a steeplechase? The answer is of course they shouldn't, and increasingly they won't…I want to see all women having the same opportunities as men.
What has happened to the Prime Minister's Opportunity 2000 initiative? He seems to have been strangely silent on the issue ever since. Could it be that the Prime Minister and Conservative Members are singularly embarrassed by their failure to make progress? After all, if we look at the Conservative Benches we see only 20 women out of a total of 330, while on the Labour Benches we are proud to have 36 women out of a total of 266. Surely if the Conservative party were serious about establishing equality of opportunity for women, it would have done more before now to get women into this place. We need no clearer illustration of the difficulties that it has faced than the fact that it has chosen a man to be its Minister for women.
As has already been mentioned, Parliament has placed a duty on the Equal Opportunities Commission to keep the law on sex discrimination under review and to propose amendments where needed. In 1988 and 1990, the commission published sets of proposals in respect of the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation, which sought,


in the light of experience of the workings of the legislation, to improve the framework, clarify rights and obligations, including those conferred by European law, and ensure proper and affordable access to justice for every individual in Britain.
The commission has said that it deeply regrets that the Government have, so far, rejected most of those proposals, and is pressing them to think again. It has challenged the legality of the present situation on equal pay for work of equal value, which is patently denying justice to individuals whose only means of challenging inequities is through legal processes, described by Lord Denning as being of a
tortuosity and complexity beyond compare.
The commission also proposed to the Government a range of other measures, particularly in education and training, low pay, part-time work, maternity rights and pay, and pensions. The commission believes that without such measures, it will be impossible for the Government to achieve the aims set out by the Prime Minister at the launch of Opportunity 2000. But the Government have consistently and steadfastly refused to act on the commission's recommendations. The Government pay lip service to equality for women, but do nothing to attempt to change the male-dominated culture that still pervades our society.
It is often said that an Englishman's home is his castle. But it is nearly always a woman who maintains it. Increasingly frequently, women run homes without the support of a man. Women customarily make major decisions for the household and family, often managing the household budget. However, it is more commonly the man who decides which areas of decision making he will leave to the woman and, furthermore, he may deny her knowledge of what he earns and owns. In addition, too many women remain restricted in what they may do outside the home by their partner's wishes.
A woman is expected to smooth family relationships, provide social and emotional support as well as running the home. That role in the household can leave her with little or no time for herself. Fewer than eight households in 100 at any one time are made up of a breadwinner husband with a wife or partner who is at home full time looking after children. Yet women still take responsibility for, and carry out, the majority of household tasks. That is so whether or not they work outside the home. If other members of the household share the work, they tend to be seen as "helping".
In UK households in 1987, 93 per cent. of the cleaning, 90 per cent. of the child care and 77 per cent. of the preparation of evening meals was done by women. No study since has found a significant change in that situation. In 1988, The Daily Telegraph reported a Gallup survey which found that three out of five women with families craved more time for themselves. It is estimated that, on average, basic child care tasks take around 50 hours a week. Even when the mother had no other job, basic tasks occupied more hours than most men worked in their job.
Long working hours among men are a significant barrier for many to the more equal sharing of domestic responsibilities. Working hours in Britain are among the highest in Europe. Surveys consistently find more than 25 per cent. of men working more than 50 hours a week. It is not a surprise if they cannot do their fair share of the work at home.
It has been calculated that the average woman who takes time off work or works part time to care for her family, loses £224,000 in earnings over a lifetime. Women are financially penalised for taking primary responsibility for the care of families. Women in full-time paid work are more likely to describe themselves as tired or exhausted than the men who were mostly working longer hours but doing less domestic labour than the women. Where the wife does not have a job, husbands are more likely to dominate in decision making inside the home. Conversely, wives who are dominant in decision making are usually in paid employment.
Surveys of people caring for disabled or frail elderly people have found that, for every male carer, three women are doing a similar job. A study on Tyneside found that 25 per cent. of women over 25 years old have such caring responsibilities. One woman carer cited in a 1988 study got up at 5 am and did not finish her housework until 10 pm in an attempt to resolve the conflicting demands on her time.
The Secretary of State—I am sorry that he is not still with us—seemed to imply that, in terms of wages, women were doing rather well. I hope that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will convey this message to him. Only the other week, a woman constituent of mine came to see me to inform me that she had been offered a job at £1 an hour.
Twenty years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed, women still earn only 79 per cent. of men's full-time hourly earnings. They cluster in "women's jobs", often undervalued and underpaid. Women are also the bulk of part-time workers, with low pay and few opportunities for overtime or bonus earnings. Fragmentation of pay bargaining is likely to widen the gap, as the abolition of the remaining wages councils already has. Performance pay systems contain bias and leave a clouded picture that affects not only pay, but training and promotion chances.
Britain introduced regulations in 1984 to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. But their complexity and limitations, and the legal marathons that they have launched, have meant that they have had little or no effect on the inequality gap. The equal pay laws and administrative provisions are failing to provide justice and ensure the principle of equal pay.
I am sure that all my hon. Friends will agree with me that sex discrimination is neither lawful nor acceptable. It wastes talents and resources and denies human rights. Yet it persists in widely differing pay for women and men; fixed notions about male and female roles and capabilities; and the financial vulnerability and impoverished old age of millions of women forced to juggle paid work and family care. To close that inequality gap, we need a robust and sensible framework of law, a well-resourced Equal Opportunities Commission, to which the Government will listen, and a programme of Government-backed action to change attitudes and behaviour.
Perhaps as a start, the Under-Secretary will take away with her a request that I have received from the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women, which has two active clubs in any constituency. That organisation has asked me to convey its opinions to the Minister. It believes that the publication of gender-based statistics would be of real help in highlighting problems and raising awareness generally. Such statistics would show that typical state pensions, SERPS values and personal pensions are usually based on men's earnings, resulting in misleading figures. They


would bring the difference to the attention of both men and women, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider their publication.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: We have not had a debate of this kind for some time. I must be truthful, and say that I would not always wish to participate in such debates. Much of the ground has already been traversed, and I shall not go over it again; I will say, however, that I wholeheartedly support equal opportunities, as I would expect all hon. Members to do. We may, however, differ on what we consider to be equal opportunities, and on how they can be provided in future.
I see much more equal opportunity now than I did many years ago, when I was starting my career. There have been changes. That does not mean that we should not seek further changes, but the Government are clearly helping. Later in my speech, I shall issue one or two challenges myself.
According to the motion,
women in Britain face discrimination in all aspects of their lives.
We could probably spend not part of a day but a whole week debating that, and still have a fair amount to say; we might not all agree at the end, but I am sure that we would have a very good discussion.
I remember discussing equal opportunities with Dr. Sally Kosgei, then high commissioner for Kenya. Many of us got to know her quite well: she was a wonderful black woman from one of the villages in north Kenya. She thought that equal opportunities were fine; she said that they had equal opportunities in her country, for she had risen from a poor farming family to become a high commissioner. She had been educated in Africa and America. One day she said to me, with a large grin on her face, "If you want equal opportunities, you will have to decide that men will have the babies. As long as women have to have the babies—if they want them—there will never be equal opportunities in all aspects of our lives."
That woman was right, in that women often wish to take time off to have children. It is a choice that we can all make—and do make, at some point in our lives. I sometimes find it difficult to understand why many members of our younger generation want everything at once, which is not always as easy as it may seem. I do not think that any amount of legislation could ensure that younger women, coming along in their professions, can have the top job as well as a family—and perhaps even give time to a husband.
I acknowledge that some women choose not to do all that at the same time, but to concentrate solely on their careers; it is sometimes felt that they have an unfair advantage over those who give up work to have a family.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Lady has suggested that young women seem to want it all. An increasing number of cases have been cited of women who deliberately plan their first pregnancies much later in life to accommodate their careers. Society's response generally is abhorrence of that choice: enormous pressure is still being exerted on women to have children in what were formerly regarded as their child-bearing years. I take the hon. Lady's point, but much more than the biological processes needs to be changed.

Mrs. Peacock: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I believe that people choose to have children at different stages. Some still choose to have families when they are very young, while others choose to build up their careers before starting a family. I do not think that many of us would criticise those who want to wait until later in life, when they may find it easier to adapt to a full-time career. As I have said, we all have the opportunity to make that choice.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) mentioned the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women. I pay tribute to that organisation, which has worked assiduously for women's equality since the early 1930s—not only in encouraging Governments to act, but in encouraging younger people. I have been a member for 30 years, during which I have admired many other members who have played leading roles.
Next month, I shall be a judge in the organisation's national public speaking competition, whose finals will be held in Brighton. The organisation arranges heats throughout the country, encouraging schoolgirls to participate. I consider it a very good project: it gives confidence to many young people. Having judged heats before, I know that many young girls are much more confident as a result, and have many more opportunities.
The United Kingdom needs equal opportunities—and it needs women as well. We make up more than 50 per cent. of the population, and I consider it vital to harness our talents. That, indeed, will harness all society's talents, while allowing individuals to fulfil their potential.

Ms Eagle: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is still a long way to go? Four per cent. of the judiciary are women; 3 per cent. of university professors are women; 4 per cent. of the current Government are women. A very low percentage of women seem to be rising to the top of their professions.

Mrs. Peacock: I shall come to that point shortly.
The public appointments unit records that, in 1993, women took 40 per cent. of all new appointments: that is a great improvement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold)—who has been mentioned, but is not present this evening—is taking a great interest in encouraging women to stand for Parliament, and in recent years has recommended an increasing number of capable women to the public appointments unit. I welcome that.
Since 1979, the number of women in higher education has risen by 100,000. I am sure that we all wish that the figure were greater, but it is increasing. Since the 1992 general election, 40 per cent. of those selected for the Conservative candidates list have been women—and that has happened without any need for quotas. Between 1987 and 1991, the proportion of women in practice at the Bar rose by 8 per cent.; more and more women are taking law degrees, and going straight through to the Bar. In 1983–84, there were 5,000 female solicitors; now there are more than 14,000—20 per cent. of the total.
No party political issue is involved, but I discovered within a short time of arriving here that this place—like many others—ticks on the old boys' network. I think that we need an old girls' network. Some of us began to set up such a network some time ago. When John Timpson introduced me on a radio programme as the Member of


Parliament with a subversive network of women in the House of Commons, I took it as a compliment—although I am not sure that he meant it as one.
Most of the women with whom I come into contact—women of all ages—want equality of opportunity: there is no doubt about that. Most, however, do not want quotas. Women supporters of the Conservative party and of the other political parties do not want more women candidate short lists. They do not want a Ministry for women.

Ms Short: We have got one.

Mrs. Peacock: If we had a Ministry and a Minister for women, everything would go to that one Department at the end of a corridor and would get lost. Every Minister and Ministry should take into account women's needs. Of course it is right to have a lead Minister and a lead Department, but we should not have a Department with responsibility solely for women, which would do much more harm than good. I would not want to be shunted to the end of a corridor to discuss what I want. I would want to be in the midst of things and to hear what is going on in each Department. We would lose that capability if we had a special Ministry.
Women want to be taken seriously. If quotas and places were saved for us on committees or groups, the finger would be pointed at us, and someone would say, "We don't need to take notice of you. You're only here because we saved you a space." We would lose much of the credibilty that we have worked for many years to gain. I do not want that to happen.
A serious challenge faces my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government. Fifty per cent. of medical students are female, but only 15 per cent. of consultants are women, so there is need for improvement. Although 46 per cent. of students at universities and polytechnics are female, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, only 3 per cent. are principal lecturers or professors. Only 5 per cent. of circuit judges are women, and we certainly need improvements in that sector. Only 8 per cent. of the 144,000 managers of large companies are women.
Those figures represent our challenge for the future. I do not believe that we or the Government will meet that challenge by setting quotas. Women want to gain those jobs on merit, not through positive discrimination. If there were positive discrimination, we would not be taken seriously and it would undermine much of the work that has been done in Parliament and throughout the country in the past 20 to 30 years.

Mr. John Maxton: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak as the token Opposition male. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) in her arguments, although her speech was thoughtful and dealt with the issues—unlike that of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), which was trivial, petty and condescending. If she came here on merit, then by God the Tory party must be desperately short of good candidates.
Equally, I do not want to follow some of my hon. Friends, who rightly concentrated on discrimination against women in employment. Women are discriminated against in other sectors of life. I want to pick up from the

comments of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) about women's leisure activities and women in sport.
The hon. Member started his speech by quoting from a Dutch newspaper that in 1948 described the athlete Fanny Blankers Koen as a housewife. He said that we have moved on some way since then. He obviously did not see "The Club," a Channel 4 programme about a golf club in the "Cutting Edge" series. When asked why women were not allowed to play at 9 o'clock in the morning, a member of that club said that they were all at home making the beds and clearing up the breakfast dishes. How could they play at 9 o'clock in the morning, he asked.
Many women face great discrimination in sport. It starts at the top. For the good of the nation's health, women are actively encouraged to take part in physical activity. Television provides the biggest encouragement to people to take part in sport, because, after they watch it on television, they want to take part.
When do we see women taking part in sports on television? There are hours of coverage of men playing golf, bowls and tennis, but the women who take part in those sports are rarely seen, so there is no encouragement for women to take them up. As has already been mentioned, the men who win Wimbledon get paid more than the women who win it. Poor old Sally Gunnell is paid less than Linford Christie when she takes part in the same meeting.
There is also discrimination against women in sport at lower levels. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to the fact that his wife is a top three-day eventer. That is one of the few sports where women compete equally with men and are not discriminated against. His wife is extremely lucky.
My wife is a good golfer, athough she is not of an international standard. Last October, she played two rounds with a fellow female member of her golf club and qualified to take part in the Lady Golf Union's centenary two-ball foursome tournament on the old course at St. Andrew's. Many hon. Members will have seen the old course, with its magnificent Victorian building by the 18th green. That building houses the headquarters of the Royal and Ancient golf club, the managing organisation for golf in Britain and almost throughout the world.
My wife and her golfing partner arrived with 250 women from all over the United Kingdom to take part in that prestigious golf tournament. For the practice round, they had to get changed in their cars in the car park, and they had to use public toilets because no women are allowed in the clubhouse of the Royal and Ancient golf course.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a similar position exists in cricket? This year, the British women's cricket team enjoyed the spectacular success of winning the world cup, but they had to be presented with the trophy on the pitch, because women are not allowed in the long room at Lord's.

Mr. Maxton: I know that my hon. Friend is a good cricketer. Prejudice also exists in that sport.
Some time ago, I raised the issue of discrimination against women in golf. I was accosted by a male member of a golf club in my constituency. He said, "But we don't discriminate against women in our club." I said, "You are quite right. You don't have any women members." That


golf club is in the middle of Glasgow and takes up an enormous amount of space for leisure activity, but its members refuse to allow women members. They do not even allow women into their clubhouse.
Even if they are members, many women are discriminated against because they are not allowed to become full members or to take a full part in running a club. They feel that they are discriminated against at all levels.
The annual general meeting of my wife's golf club decided to place an extra levy on all members except juniors—on top of their subscription—to pay for a new roof for the men's changing room. The women have to pay a levy towards the cost, proportionate to their subscription.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Quite right.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman may say that that is right, but those women did not have a vote at the AGM when it was decided that a levy should be imposed on them. Does he still believe that it is right that such discrimination should take place? Of course it should not. There is still widespread discrimination against women in sport, and it could and should be stopped.
It may be too draconian to decide at this stage that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 should be extended to cover leisure activities, but the Government and the Sports Councils should make it clear that no grants, and certainly no money from the national lottery, will be given to any club or sport that discriminates on the grounds of gender, whether against its members or by refusing to have women as members in the first place.
Local authorities should certainly consider carefully whether to give rates relief to sports clubs that practise discrimination and perhaps licensing courts should consider whether they are prepared to grant a licence to a club that practises discrimination by refusing to accept women members, or by refusing to allow women to drink there.
Those are some actions which could be taken to solve the problem of discrimination, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), will give a sympathetic hearing to what I have said.

Lady Olga Maitland: In case my later remarks should somehow be misinterpreted, may I first say that I appreciate the commitment of the hon. Lady for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and the enormous amount of work that she has put in to help the cause of women. I know that she is sincere and has been working in this area for a long time. In many ways, we share common goals, but we differ in the means by which we want to achieve the fairest and best possible deal for women.
I admit that there has been prejudice over the centuries and even nowadays, but, in attempting to right a wrong, there is always an enormous danger of lurching so far in the other direction that one make things worse. The Conservatives are trying to keep common sense and a sense of proportion to the fore. Having listened hard and long to the debate, and having read many articles and features about the Labour party's position and its attitude towards women, I must take exception to the way in which

it lectures us about the promotion of equal opportunities. I take particular exception to its attempts to remedy the problem by what I would call artificial social engineering.
Positive discrimination is very degrading to women. I do not understand how Labour's proposals could possibly help us. The Labour party proposes a mountain of regulations and controls which would make it almost impossible for an employer to be able to afford to take on more women, let alone keep those whom he already employs. Its call for the minimum wage and its support for the European Community's social chapter would mean fewer jobs available to women, not more. How can that possibly be regarded as a fair deal?
I see things differently and more clearly. I believe that there is a very strong socialist streak in the so-called reasonableness of the Labour party. That socialist streak is an attempt to control our lives rather than allow us women to make our own decisions. We should be carefully examining Labour's proposals and seeking examples of what it is doing so that we can make our own judgment.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Lady wood omitted to mention a vote at the Labour party's annual conference last year in which more than 80 per cent. decided to accept women's quotas. In short, it was decided:
This conference notes the Party's commitment to achieving 40 per cent. of women as MPs for Labour by 1999 or two elections time".
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for drawing that to the House's attention, but the fact that she did so does not mean that I should not reinforce her remarks.
It is extraordinary that the Labour party believes that the only realistic way of achieving its aims is to implement the women-only shortlist in 50 per cent. of seats where a sitting Labour Member of Parliament is not standing for re-election. Not surprisingly, the move has been scorned by some Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was reported in the Evening Standard of 23 November as saying that the plan was
wrong in principle and probably unworkable in practice".
How right he is.

Mrs. Currie: Should not my hon. Friend be a little more charitable to the Labour party? Derbyshire has 10 constituencies, six of which are held by the Conservatives. However, there are three women Members of Parliament—two are Tories and one is a Labour Member. In other words, 30 per cent. of the seats there are held by women without the operation of quotas. I offer my hon. Friend the contrast with Scotland, where the majority of seats are held by the Labour party—indeed, only a handful are not—but the number of women Labour Members is minuscule.

Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows that the Conservative party believes in women progressing on merit alone and, my goodness, that is what they do.

Ms Rachel Squire: As Scotland has been mentioned, will the hon. Lady explain why there is no Conservative woman Member of Parliament there? Might I suggest that it is either because women in Scotland have more sense than to join the Conservative party, or because the Conservative party operates an all-male shortlist in Scotland?

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady completely misses the point. The women in the Conservative party in Scotland would be insulted if they were artificially promoted to a seat because of their sex—the Conservative party prizes merit.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I cannot give way again; I have already done so a couple of times.
Ann Carlton, the co-convener of "Labour Supporters for Real Equality", was quoted in Tribune no less on 17 November last year as saying:
Such measures are totally irrelevant to the abolition of the gender gap.
Indeed, Labour Back Benchers have shown little enthusiasm for the obligation to vote for the four women in the shadow Cabinet elections.
I shall tell a wee story almost out of school. I overheard a conversation between two male Labour Members. The first said robustly, "I think it is a load of nonsense. I have never heard such rubbish." The second said, "Well, I don't know; we have to be very careful about upsetting our sisters." One should never underestimate a man—indeed, one should never underestimate a woman—but the result was the Tea Room revolt.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They got fewer women, not more.

Lady Olga Maitland: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the men got their own back and it became an electoral farce. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was reported in the Daily Mail on 21 October as saying:
There was resentment among some MPs who didn't want to be told who they should vote for in a sexual way.
Labour Members spread their votes as widely as possible and to the most unlikely women candidates, with the result that has already been outlined more than once this evening. We should re-emphasise the point because it reveals the triviality of the Labour party. Only two of the required four women collected sufficient votes and even the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was voted off.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: She was still put on the Front Bench.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Lady Olga Maitland: I do not choose to give way to the hon. Member. It was interesting that The Times headed its leader column with the words "nonsensical election". When the Thunderer delivers an opinion such as that, perhaps it has a point. The affair did nothing to enhance the Labour party's standing, as The Guardian made clear on 26 October. After all, it trumpets the cause of the Opposition, not us, so Opposition Members should take heed. The article said:
This week's Shadow Cabinet election results…tells us a lot of things about the state of the Labour Party—and all of them are bad. The Labour Party aspires to govern the country. But these were not the results of a serious Party…Labour goes about the task like a natural party of opposition.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: I think that I shall have to give way, because the dear lady is getting very upset.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at last. Is she aware that, in the previous shadow Cabinet elections, there were far more votes for women than ever before? [Interruption.] The average number of votes cast for women candidates was five per person instead of the compulsory four. Is not that an indication that Labour is voting for women as many candidates came near the top of the list—quite the reverse of what is happening in the Conservative party, where there are so few female Members of Parliament?

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady made a good attempt to try to portray that disastrous position. The truth was that the men cooked their goose for them.
I was also somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Ladywood did not mention her party's commitment to the proposal for a women's ministry with full representation in the Cabinet. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) raised the matter first this evening.

Ms Short: I am sorry. The hon. Lady is being polite in the way in which she is rude, at least in relation to me. She was not listening. I mentioned the ministry clearly. I said that the existing arrangements are a product of Jo Richardson's work. We have been watching it closely and we shall build on it when we take power.

Lady Olga Maitland: I stand corrected if that was what the hon. Lady was trying to say. It was not at all clear. The brief for the so-called women's ministry, which seems to be designed to take on every male bastion in the establishment, will not do well for women and probably rebound badly. For a start, I do not think that women want to be put into a ghetto and I certainly do not think that we want to be marginalised. We see ourselves as members of mainstream society and we shall remain there.
In short, it should be recognised that, try as it may, the Labour party will always fail to attract the female vote. It certainly did at the previous election, when it secured only 34 per cent. of the female vote, compared with 37 per cent. of the male vote. The women went elsewhere, largely to the Conservative party. In a misconceived attempt to rectify matters, the Labour party has backed positive discrimination and special treatment for women, which is falling on deaf ears. They almost sound like desperate measures to try to cling on to a disastrous situation.
Labour Members are concerned about part-time workers as if they are trying to put across the impression that, if one works part time, it is somehow degrading, wrong or insulting. If one works part time, one inevitably receives less salary at the end of the week than if one works full time. The women who work part time do so entirely of their own free choice. They choose to do it so as to fit in with their family commitments and many of them do it in the children's early years when they cannot work full time. It is insulting to suggest somehow that they have become second-class citizens—far from it. If that was the case, why has the number of part-time workers escalated beyond all measure in the past decade?
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) referred to unpaid workers and implied that somehow it was insulting to be working in a voluntary sector. The wonderful charitable work that men and women have done has been enormously appreciated. The role of women in the charitable sector should never be undermined and should never be in any way regarded as derogatory to their


status. Those women would be insulted to think that, if they were raising money for Cancer Relief or Oxfam, they would need to be paid to do it.
I am also absolutely astonished that the hon. Lady should suggest that housewives should be paid for looking after their families. She is probably referring to the "Wages for Housework" campaign. It strikes me that any woman wants to look after her family for all the hours that God sends. That means getting up in the middle of night, once, twice, three or four times. She does it out of the love for her family. The reward that I get from my family is their support and my sense of well-being means that we all become a much more united family. The mother who refuses to comply with her duties would be a rare animal. I do not think that it happens. It is the way we are made. It goes back to the real essence of "vive la difference". We cannot be changed.
We are perfectly capable, thank you, of making our own way. We only ask that we are judged on our own merits and that we have a fair chance. The ideals of Emmeline Pankhurst, who campaigned vigorously for the vote, have not been upheld by what I call the angry feminist brigade. The difficulty is that the women of that brigade have clouded the real issues. Emmeline Pankhurst would turn in her grave if she could see the way in which they have brought the issue of sexism into the whole subject and their personal style of sexuality into the workplace, which has become offensive.
We want straightforward, down to earth common sense and we want to get on with it. I am grateful for the practical approaches of the Government over the years to facilitate that chance. As a result of their commitment, a higher proportion of women work in Britain than in any other country in the European Community apart from Denmark. It is interesting that women work in Britain because the working community is available to provide the work. We are moving out of recession and there will be more opportunities for everyone.
There are certainly plenty of achievements of which to be proud. In the past decade, between 1983 and 1992, there was an 11 per cent. increase in the female work force in full-time employment and a 29 per cent. increase in those choosing to work part time. In all, as the Secretary of State pointed out, 46 per cent. of the work force are now women. The greatest shift has been in the number of self-employed women, which has doubled to one woman in four.
The best barometer of progress is in my constituency. Angry feminism has never entered their heads, but women play a key role in our society. Not one has ever mentioned to me that she has been a victim of sex discrimination. They all reflect the progress that has been greatly helped by the Government's down-to-earth, practical approaches. [Laughter.] Let me give some examples. [Laughter.] It is easy for the Opposition to chatter and jeer, but it may be worth while addressing what we have managed to accomplish.
The chief executive of our council is a woman. There are women editors of all the local newspapers. There are women-only GP practices. As has already been pointed out, women now make up more than half the number of medical students. I accept that the number of women consultants is not yet nearly high enough, but bearing in mind the fact that half the medical student population are

now women I have no doubt that they will take their rightful place at the consultancy level once they have worked their way through the system.
The women head teachers in my constituency are of the highest calibre. Their achievements in their schools are interesting, too. More girls than boys have passed their A-levels and in general girls achieve better results than boys at GCSE. The number of lawyers in Sutton reflects the rapidly growing proportion of women solicitors and women at the Bar. Women now constitute at least one third of the profession.
Women in business have made a particular mark in Sutton. Indeed, in the past couple of years they have been slightly more successful than men in sustaining progress after starting up new companies. The Sutton Enterprise Agency tells me that that is because they are natural housekeepers and well disciplined. After handling a domestic budget with caution, women adapt well to handling a business budget without over-committing themselves. If they have one weakness, it is more to do with their initial lack of self-confidence than with discrimination by others.
Sutton did not need the Labour party to tell it how to select a woman Member of Parliament. I was chosen by an association that genuinely had no strong feelings on the subject—so much so that one third of the candidates that it chose to interview in the first instance were women. There is only one job still outstanding in Sutton and I hear that that lack may soon be remedied when we get a woman chief of police.
As something of a sideline to my speech, I pay a special tribute to the role of women in the police force, not only at WPC level, where women's contribution has been very professional, but as they work their way up through the system. The women assistant chief constables whom I have met have been most impressive.
There is only one development about which I must admit to a touch of regret, and that is the creation of women priests. We shall have our fair share of them in Sutton, but I object on religious grounds, not on grounds of equal opportunity, to their elevation to the priesthood.
If anything, the debate should be retitled "In Praise of Women's Progress". We should not allow ourselves to become complacent about what we have achieved. I believe that I have benefited enormously from the facilities that were put into my path when I was building my career. When I started in Fleet street 25 years ago, women made up only 10 per cent. of the work force on the Sunday Express. In those days the attitude was, "Oh, she can work in the fashion department, or the women's pages." Only because I had worked for a hard news agency could I manage to persuade people that I wanted to work in other areas.
To tell an anecdote slightly against myself, there was once severe competition for a job as head of department. Having been given that post, I turned up to work to find a man seated at my desk opening my letters, dictating to my secretary and using my telephone. I said, "I hope that you'll step into my grave as quickly as you've stepped into my shoes." He said, "I have a right to be here; you are only a housewife."

Ms Short: What happened next?

Lady Olga Maitland: I won; I tipped him out. By the end of the week he was gone.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Without a quota.

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, without a quota.
Women in Fleet street have now well and truly made their mark. Now we find many women in all the top positions, whether as news editors or even as editors of newspapers. Eve Pollard now edits the Sunday Express, where I used to work, and I rejoice in her success.
We must examine the changes in our society and ask why they have come about. They have happened not only because of better education, and the fact that women are going into further and higher education, but because women now have higher aspirations. They will not settle for less. Moreover, society is more sympathetic to the idea that women can combine families with careers—some-thing that our grandmothers could never do.
On the whole, I believe that the reason why women are so popular and successful in the workplace is their excellent track record. They are reliable; they work hard; they do not drink heavily; they manage their domestic lives efficiently; they do not build up the sort of criminal records that men do, or become involved in many squalid business deals. It is not surprising that women are in demand.
We must keep a sense of proportion about what we seek to achieve. We should not be in any way complacent. I should be grossly insulted if I were employed in any capacity because of positive discrimination. I believe that such a move would rebound disastrously on us all. However, there is one factor to which we must pay attention—child care provision.
I know what that involves, because I have three children, I have been a working mother and I have had to worry about them. I was fortunate, because having worked my way through Fleet street, I had what was described as an executive salary and could pay for my own child care, with someone resident in my home. But if one happens to be a woman who does not command such a salary—a teacher or a receptionist—

Ms Short: A cleaner.

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, a full-time cleaner, or whatever—we should look seriously at the best ways to help to increase child care provision.

Ms Short: Good.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady should not get too excited. She thinks that I shall ignore all the initiatives that the Government have taken so far. I shall not. I welcome the Government's achievements in that regard. I welcome the fact that they have been imaginative and have an excellent record in encouraging pre-school provision, so that 90 per cent. of all three to four-year-olds take part in some form of group activity with their peer group. No one can deny that there are more day nurseries and more child minders. There is tax relief for employers' nurseries, and the Budget introduced a child care allowance, beginning in October, worth £28 a week to people on family credit.
The National Council for One Parent Families was reported in The Daily Telegraph on 11 December as describing that allowance as
a step in the right direction".
The measure will help 150,000 families and it is specifically aimed at encouraging single mothers to go to work and to move away from total dependence on state benefits.
I approve of another imaginative scheme—the out-of-school child care grant, which will help 50,000 children to have somewhere to go after school hours.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Duchy fund in Lancashire gives assistance to a kids club to do precisely that—to provide out-of-hours care for children.

Lady Olga Maitland: Where Lancashire leads, the world follows. That is excellent news.
Nevertheless, we have some way to go and child care is an issue that I wish to watch carefully. I shall watch in particular the cost of child minders, because I have a feeling that they are operating something of a scam. I cannot understand how they can charge such high fees for taking care of a toddler. Indeed, their charges put them out of range of women who cannot easily afford them. What I would us like to do—it may not be possible yet, but I would like to consider it—is look at other ways of providing child care, for example, with nursery vouchers. Indeed, why cannot we have tax relief? It has been talked about for some time, but the time has come to look at this matter more seriously.
In conclusion, I welcome the Government's commit-ment to help women without being patronising. No one is more supportive than the Prime Minister. Ironically, he has done more to help women than his predecessor who, as we all know, was the first woman Prime Minister—Baroness Thatcher. The Prime Minister has shown his concern in this area by promoting more women to top jobs, be it in the Cabinet or his personal office. Indeed, he gave an enormous boost to the public appointments unit by appointing more women to public bodies. Our concern is to maintain the dignity of women and give them the very best opportunity to use their undoubted talents.

8 pm

Ms Jean Corston: The debate has shown the Conservative party at its worst. The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) illustrated something very interesting. As 22 hon. Members wished to speak in the debate, we were all asked to keep our speeches short. However, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam bored on for 29 minutes. That is the height of selfishness in a debate where so many hon. Members want to speak, bearing in mind that this is the first debate on sex discrimination in the House since 1975.
As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said, the Second Reading of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was 19 years ago next week. That debate and today's debate were initiated by the Labour party. The degree to which the Conservative party is embarrassed by that is shown by the fact that we have more women Members in our party than all the other parties put together. The Tory party busily reassembled its women Members to stick a few behind the Front Bench today because they have such a shortage of women Members and they are embarrassed.
In 15 years of Conservative Government, there has not been a single half-day committed to debating sex discrimination. Tory Members are being asked to support a Government amendment which says that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionally wide and increasing opportunities, and asks the Government to continue to pursue the policies that have made that possible.
That is spitting in the wind because the United Kingdom Government have been referred to the European Court of Justice on issues of women's equality more often than any other European Union Government. For example, they have been referred on pension age, retirement age, equal pay for work of equal value, invalidity pensions and housing benefits. Last week, the Law Lords ruled that part-time workers, almost all of whom are women, are discriminated against by the Tory amendments to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which weakened and eroded women's rights on matters such as unfair dismissal and redundancy.
The Government have constantly stressed the burdens on employers of treating women equally. It is interesting that they never tell us about the employers who do not agree with them. In the Financial Times of 4 March, the operations director of one company that had restructured its work force to increase the number of part-time workers to respond to daily fluctuations in customers' demands is quoting as saying:
'When we took this strategic decision it did not even enter our considerations that employing people part-time would make it easier to dismiss them. Our whole objective was to produce the goods that our customers wanted at the right time. As to increased potential costs—we are not looking to get rid of people.'
Despite 24 years of equal pay legislation, the United Kingdom is at the bottom of the league, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) said. When we look at women's earnings as a percentage of men's earnings—this covers all women; it is not only professional women whose salaries may be as high as 80 or 100 per cent. of men's salaries, as is the case with Members of Parliament and if it is good enough for us, it should be good enough for everyone else—we find that in the United Kingdom, women's pay as a percentage of men's overall pay was 67.1 per cent. in 1991. In Denmark, it was 84.7 per cent; in France, it was 80 per cent; and in Greece, it was 75.8 per cent. That is what the Government are boasting about.
We have seen the Government presiding over and encouraging the casualisation of the work force and job insecurity. They abolished the wages councils which were the last protection for hundreds of thousands of women working in low-paid jobs where it was difficult for them to be organised. We have now seen the sinister emergence of things called zero-hours contracts and key-time contracts which are offered to women, especially those in hotels and catering, and shops. A key-time contract guarantees some work but not regular hours. A zero-hours contract does not guarantee any hours at all.
Employers who provide zero-hours contracts provide no commitment to employees to provide any work. Equally, employees do not commit themselves to work any hours at all. They are not contracted to work any hours at all. They are expected to be available for work at short notice, but they are not contracted so to be. Therefore, they must be available for work all the time, but they have no guarantee of work at any time. The Government boast about that.
By 1983, it was clear that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970 needed consolidation and strengthening. Jo Richardson, a friend of Labour Members and someone whom we miss very much—she would have been in the House 20 years a few days ago—introduced the

Sex Equality Bill on 9 December 1983. That Bill was opposed by the Government. It is to her great credit that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) supported Jo Richardson's Bill.
That Bill recognised that the legislation needed consolidation. Jo Richardson proposed definitions of discrimination, including one that encompassed sexual harassment and pregnancy. She referred to the necessity for enforcement provisions in the Bill to include a procedure for assessing claims for equal work of equal value, and introduced the power to refer discriminatory or indirectly discriminatory collective agreements to the central arbitration committee. She said:
People's attitudes have changed. We feel that the time has come to move on and make the legislation better than it was. Groups of people and individuals have become more frustrated at what they see to be an unfair and unwarranted limitation on their rights as individuals, and the continuing domination by men, confirming the traditionally accepted role of women as dependants and the inferior sex."—[Official Report, 9 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 581.]
That Bill was not supported by the Conservative Government and, as a private Member's Bill, it fell.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and other hon. Members said that quotas are unnecessary. That has been the approach of several hon. Members, especially the Member who is probably the most senior of us all—if one likes, the first among equals. However, Barbara Castle who is much revered by Labour Members takes a different view. Last year, she wrote an article in a Sunday paper in which she said that throughout most of her political life she had been against quotas because she did not need any help. However, the older she got, the more she realised that that was an extraordinarily self-centred and selfish view, and she had received a lot of help to get in the House, as did many of us. She cited the case of one of her secretaries who, every time selections for a general election came around, tried to be selected to get in the House but who failed for years. That secretary was eventually elected in 1969, and is now the Speaker of the House. If Barbara Castle thinks that the experience of her secretary persuaded her to argue for quotas, it must be a convincing argument.
I did some research into sex discrimination at work in 1989. I found that women in middle management consistently came up against what could be called a glass ceiling, while other women were condemned to a life of low-grade, low-status jobs.
Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, who is no longer in her place, and I were part of a group of hon. Members who visited Holloway women's prison, which has a record number of 479 inmates. I asked for the proportions of men and women who were working at Holloway. I was told that there were 226 people in the lower grades of staff, 90 per cent. of whom were women. I was also told that there were 10 governor grade jobs in Holloway, only one of which was held by a woman. That says it all.
We have heard much about women's opportunities and child care, and the way in which women ought to be playing a part in the work force. However, Government policies place women in what I can only describe as a kind of guilt. If a woman is not working and has children, she feels guilty because the Government have eroded the concept of the family wage and driven down wages. She feels that she ought to be working, and that happened to me when my children were small and I wanted to improve my education. I did not have an opportunity to go out to work.


If a woman does work, she is made to feel guilty and told that she should be at home. There is no way for a woman to square that circle.
There is also the question of the skills that women acquire while bringing up a family. Women learn conflict resolution, dispute avoidance, time management and budgeting—all things which organisations such as Lloyd's bank spend a fortune training men to learn. Yet when women do get jobs, they are condemned to low-grade, low-status jobs. The attributes of women ought to be recognised.
We want legislation that gives part-time workers equal employment rights to full-time workers, strengthens the Equal Pay Act 1970, speeds up and simplifies equal value places, restores pay protection through wages councils, gives statutory parental leave, extends maternity leave to 18 weeks and ensures that all children have access to a nursery from the age of three. Above all, we want legislation that reforms the state pension system, because far too many women in this country are poor pensioners.
People come to my surgery who cannot afford a pair of shows, and no hon. Member should be proud of that. Those people have each week the kind of money that most Conservatives would spend on an evening out.
An old Chinese proverb says that women hold up half the sky. That is at the very least true, and it is a pity that the Government have done nothing to recognise that.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I have listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members of all parties, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I depart slightly from what has gone before.
Many of the major issues of dispute between the parties have been trotted out for display on the specific issue of sexual discrimination, and I do not intend to go back over them. Suffice it to say that I think we sometimes make greater issue about this matter than we need to.
The reality is that there has been a natural progression during the past 30 to 40 years. There has been greater freedom for women in the workplace, and much of that has been brought about without Government legislation.
There has been a deep change in the nature of work across the western world. The old, heavy, industrial, metal-bashing, smokestack industries are producing less of the work in this country. Service sector jobs, such as banking, require less muscle and a great deal of brain and co-ordination, and they have taken over and are continuing to grow. They will produce the increases in employment during the next few years, and the reality is that, in those jobs, women are every bit as capable as men of producing the goods and, in some respects, are probably far better.
Companies must come to realise that there will be no excuse for them in the next few years. If they discriminate in any shape or form, they will only discriminate against themselves because the pool of talent is always limited and finite. It is up to companies to recognise that they need to make use of whatever talent is out there.
That is a natural progression, and I wish that the Opposition would recognise that as much the Government have. It is absolutely critical that companies recognise that the talent among women is every bit as great as that among men.
I often talk to my wife about aspects of sexual discrimination, and she says time and again that she wishes

that women who go on about discrimination would not decry the role of women at home. She often talks to women who hold down jobs and, during the conversation, they ask her what she does. When she replies that she is a housewife, the career women immediately freeze and move away. That is important, for having watched my wife looking after four children and running a home, I know that she is not my equal—she is my superior. There is no doubt that I could not possibly do it, and without her I would not be here. Some Opposition Members may wish that that was the case.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right in noting that no one should be criticised or demeaned for deciding that they wish to be—for want of a better word—housewives. On the other side of the coin, does my hon. Friend agree that it is equally distasteful that women who decide that they wish to pursue a career and a family are more often than not also treated in certain quarters with some contempt, and are made to feel that, in some ways, they too cannot play a full role in bringing up a family and pursuing a job?

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter, which, while it follows the point that I made, stands on its own.
There was a momentous event last week when I noted, with some horror, the ruling of the Law Lords on the rights of part-time workers under the Employment Protection Act 1978, which, it was suggested, resulted in inadvertent sexual discrimination. I notice that the Opposition mentioned that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not referred to that decision. I hope that, by the end of my speech, they will perhaps have had enough of the matter. I wish to go into the basis of the ruling, because it is critical that we understand fully what the Law Lords have done. They said that the majority of part-time workers are women and the majority of full-time workers are men, using the 16-hour break point.
The Law Lords went on to say that the difference in treatment of part-time and full-time workers accordingly tends adversely to affect more women than men. They said that, unless the difference of treatment is "objectively justified"—a critical point to which I will come back—it constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex contrary to European Community law.
Finally, the burden of proving objective justification being on the Government, the evidence submitted by the Department did not establish that. It is important to note that the evidence consisted of an affidavit. I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to explain when she replies what constituted that affidavit, and what evidence was given to disprove that point.
My big worry is that the width of the judgment is quite staggering. It does not just deal with redundancy and unfair dismissal. I believe that it will also back into occupational pensions in a dramatic way. Although the case did not relate to occupational pensions, there seems no reason under article 119 why part-time employees may not sue both public and private sector employers for equivalent occupational pension rights to full-timers and for equivalent holiday pay.

Ms Short: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Duncan Smith: If our Government had decided to follow that course, that would have been fine. They were elected to make such decisions here and they would have


had to stand by them. In the same way, if the Labour party had been elected to government and carried through the House a decision to give part-time workers equal rights, that would have been the right way to proceed. The right way is not through the back door by means of a ruling based on European law, which has widened the aspect of the debate.
Secondly, the ruling has immediate effect on occupational pension and holiday rights and also on redundancy rights. Part-time workers will now be able to claim redundancy pay from both public and private sector employers after only two years employment. New amending legislation will not be required. It has already been proved in several cases such as de Freyn and Barber, that article 119 is held to have had direct effect. That is critical. Those in the public employ will be able to sue with immediate effect as a result of the ruling.
It is also possible to examine unfair dismissal. Public sector and private sector part-time employees who believe that they have been dismissed unfairly will be able to make claims again for unfair dismissal if employed for two years or more. Again, no legislation is required. It is also apparent that it will be possible to make some of the claims, if not all of them, retrospective. As a result of a decision taken not by my Front-Bench colleagues but by the Law Lords on a fairly debatable point, we may find that claims will feed through certainly for redundancy pay which are retrospective for up to four years. That will load costs on to industry in a way that I do not believe was ever entertained by the Law Lords.
The ruling is a major step. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is thinking hard what to do on the issue. The Government would not necessarily have taken that step, but if we had done so we would have been justified in taking that step through the House, having carried the House with us. After all, the House is elected by the public on that basis. I hope that Opposition Members accept that this is another matter in which our powers to decide such matters have been stripped away. It is a critical decision. I shall deal with some of the main reasons why it is critical later.
I hope that, instead of saying that a great decision has been made which has forced something that they wish to see come through into legislation, Opposition Members will see that if they were in our position they would consider that the ruling was not the right way to go about it. It is up to the Government to make such decisions and carry the House with them.
I shall not go into detail on inadvertent sexual discrimination, but it is a dubious point. I should like to know a little more, if possible, from my hon. Friend the Minister about what we presented to justify our case. Once the Law Lords decided that it was right to rule on the procedural matters, we had to put forward a defence that the current position was objectively justified. I believe that we would have been able so to justify it. Time and again, we have demonstrated that our employment policy is based on flexibility. That is to say that the work force should be able to meet and match the jobs that are available. As employment prospects grew, part-time work would develop into full-time jobs; it was economically vital.
Our position has been justified time and again. As we have moved out of recession we have been able to take

advantage of the employment policy. Employment has moved up quickly immediately. We are not seeing that in other countries in Europe. The rate of unemployment in Britain is dropping. Much of that is due to the fact that we have a more flexible work force than probably any other country in Europe. That has a lot to do with our position on part-time work. Therefore, although the Law Lords ruled that there was inadvertent sexual discrimination, we could have objectively justified that. We had good economic grounds for it.
Once we have dealt with the basis of the ruling, it is important to consider why the ruling came through. There has been a major progressive change over the years. It has come from the European Court of Justice. As Lord Denning said many years ago:
The Treaty of Rome is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.
The judgment from the Lords in the past week has demonstrated clearly how that tide of law affects the divisional courts. The decision was based wholly on European treaties and declarations, not on any British legislation.
Last year, in January, I made a speech in which I pointed out that, in many of the social provisions, sexual discrimination being one of them, we would see the tide of legal expertise flowing back from the court and avoiding our social chapter opt-out. Article 119, which I quoted on that occasion, article 118 and every other directive have thrown back all the social provisions that we would not necessarily wish to implement. Perhaps the Opposition would wish to implement them, but they should do so if and when they were ever elected to government. That is the key point. Opposition Members should not seek to introduce measures through the back door. They should seek to do so through their position in government.

Ms Short: My understanding of the House of Lords ruling is that the Lords interpreted the British law as incorporating the treaty of accession into British law. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he wishes Britain to leave the European Union. Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The point that I am making is simply that while we signed up to several articles and declarations in the treaty of Rome, and subsequent amendments. The idea remained that we as a Parliament and a Government should be justified in making the decisions on how we believe that the economy should work here, as long as that does not affect other member states. That is clearly the case here. We decided to go for a flexible work force. We have produced such a work force. I believe that it has had beneficial results. We have more people in employment than ever before and a falling level of unemployment.
I accept that Conservative and Opposition Members will never agree on that point, but if the people of Britain had elected a Government to follow their views, that would be fine. That is exactly what the Opposition would have been justified in doing. However, it is not what the people elected us to do. That is the problem for us. I wish to deal with that point.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the judgment about which he complains and the legislation about which he is worried would not have been invoked if the British Government


had treated women equally? Is he saying that, when the electorate last went to the polls, people consciously voted for a Government who would deny women equal treatment within the work force?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The problem with this is the contrary. The principle of long standing that no Parliament may bind another has clearly been broken. The equal opportunities legislation was passed during a Labour tenure. The Labour party was in government, as it was for the 1978 Act. The point is simply that the articles referred to pre-date the Single European Act by a long time and bind us on the issue. The matters were dealt with under Labour. Therefore, it is up to the Government to decide whether we wish to see such provisions implemented.
With respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), I said earlier that I did not believe that the law on part-time work demonstrated sexual discrimination in the way that has been suggested. That is the key. It is not that we believe in sexual discrimination. We do not believe that there was sexual discrimination. The matter is simply about part-time workers. The economic justifications for a flexible work force speak louder than ever before.
If I might make some suggestions to my hon. Friend, I think that we ought to fight the issue again rather than implement the judgment of the Lords. There is the opportunity to do that. In terms of legal precedence, the decision of their Lordships on that point is not a finding of law binding on other courts. It would be possible to allow those people who wish to do so to pursue the matter through the divisional court, to defend on the basis of justifiable reason, as we did previously, but to put more emphasis on the economic aspects.
I wish that my hon. Friend would take consideration of that, bearing in mind that we do not believe that it is in reality sexual discrimination, but that it is economically justifiable as it exists at the moment. We should watch that come through the divisional court and make a decision afterwards, rather than jumping now. It would be open to a sued employer to fight on that basis from there.
I would therefore support the Government in trying to do that. It would have grave economic consequences were we to accept the decision, not just in the aspects that I discussed earlier, but also as regards pension rights, the position as to which has yet to be quantified. We do not know what that would cost.
There is a possibility that we can produce a declaratory or clarificatory Act which may help with regard to the 1978 Act. It would be important to ensure that we had the opportunity of saying that the House should be able to speak about justifiable reasons and tell the court clearly that that was the case. It would be a good position to take and it would help with regard to the case.
My hon. Friend should bear in mind that it is time for us to think carefully about discussing again articles 117 onwards with our colleagues and friends in the European Community, because we would not wish all the social aspects of the treaty of Rome to be imported here. We believe that they will lead to an uneconomic and uncompetitive Britain. We also believe that the whole of Europe will become uneconomic, so we have to inform them that now is the time to ensure that we drop those aspects of the treaty. We should push for them to be taken out. They are not fields for common debate. They are fields in which national Governments must make all the decisions.
If the Labour party is elected, it will have to make a decision, simply on economic grounds, that its social policy is justifiable. It may well do so. It may be elected on that basis—I doubt it—but we have justified to our electorate that we believe that a flexible work force will be the one that will take us forward into the 21st century.
I believe that the problem is that the Law Lords have taken unto themselves the position as a constitutional court now, and we need to take careful consideration of what they have been able to move into—with the social aspects. I wish to put it to my hon. Friend that we should fight, to ensure that we establish the justifiable reasons that we believe are there. I hope that she and her hon. Friends will come up with the sort of decisions that I have outlined.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman—I regret that I have temporarily, if I ever knew, forgotten his constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Chingford."] The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred to the Law Lords' decision in the case that was taken to them by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which related to the differences that the Government have created in wages and conditions of work between part-time and full-time workers.
In its extremely helpful little briefing pamphlet, "The Inequality Gap," the Equal Opportunities Commission says:
Britain has over 5 million part-time workers, 87 per cent. of them women, and the numbers are rising.
More than 2 million of those part-time workers
earn so little, or are so sporadically employed, that they do not pay National Insurance and have no entitlements to unemployment and sickness pay, or to a State Pension, for which if not working they might have got credits.
Another extremely helpful briefing document published by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, entitled "Unequal Opportunities," says:
The Equal Opportunities Commission's Annual Report for 1992 talks in terms of a 'surge in complaints about workplace sex discrimination'…The level of employment-related complaints and enquiries stood at 13,320, an increase of 47 per cent. on the previous year. The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service reported a similar trend—sex discrimination complaints referred to the Service for arbitration rose by 67 per cent. in 1992.
At the beginning of our debate, the Minister who has found Detroit more attractive than his duties as Minister for women spoke of Jo Richardson and of her struggle and her constant fight for the needs of women. I believe that Jo Richardson would have called for the rights of women—rights to equality in education and to equal pay for work of equal worth; and to equality in promotion prospects, in pensions, in access to justice and in health.
Today I had the pleasure of declaring open—if that is the correct word for a piece of medical and scientific equipment—a new mammograph machine at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, the women's hospital on the fringes of my constituency. It is a very pleasant duty for any Member of Parliament actually to be able to welcome an improvement in a national health facility these days, as opposed to endlessly standing in cold vigils attempting to prevent closures.
Another aspect of the basic inequalities that still work against women in this country is that 15,000 women die from breast cancer every year, 25,000 cases are reported


every year and, in the nation as a whole, the treatment, screening, after-care and counselling are patchy in the extreme.
That is why, I am happy to say, a couple of weeks ago an all-party group was formed in the House to deal with the issue of breast cancer. I am equally happy to say that the group has representatives from both sides of the House, male and female, because that seems to emphasise something that has tended to be ignored in our debates, at least from the Conservative Benches this afternoon.
Reference has been made to the value of women as housewives, almost as though women's work in the house, because essentially it is unpaid work—women in the house do not receive a brown envelope at the end of the week—is not really work. I assure Conservative Members that it is real work, and a great many women undertake it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady does not need to reassure us.

Ms Jackson: There are somewhat garbled shouts from sedentary positions attempting to refute the point that I am going to make.

Mrs. Mahon: Do not give way to him.

Ms Jackson: I have no intention of doing so.
Obviously I did not make sufficiently clearly the point that there has been a great deal of patronage and patronising attitude swishing around the Chamber this afternoon on women's rights for equal treatment under the law in a range of our national life. One of the aspects that I have found especially patronising is the way in which men seem to think that, if they endorse our activities, that is the only validation we need, and that if they say that it is okay for women to work in the house, that is all we ever need to ask for.
I have to tell Conservative Members that I am of an age when I can remember that women on their own were lauded. It was, of course, during a war. The men were away fighting. Then, women attempting to raise their families on their own were little heroines. I have found it especially shocking during the past few weeks that Ministers of the Crown have attempted to blame all society's ills on women who, for three main reasons—death, divorce and desertion—are responsible for raising 2.2 million of the nation's children on the most scandalously low levels of financial support that could be conceived of.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion, as I realise that many other Members wish to take part in the debate. I must say, however, that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke as though the fight was over. She reeled off 10 or 15 women—I do not remember the precise number—who have achieved public recognition because they are successful in their chosen professions. Let us say that the number she gave was 15, and let us assume that the average age of those women is between 25 and 35. Let us assume also that women constitute half of the population of the country—in other words, 27 million human beings.
If we were to invest £27 million in a bank and after 25 or 30 years our return were £15 there would be an absolute outcry at such a shameful rate. That is what we are discussing—the shameful rate of return on the vast pool of talent that is female. It is the equality of women in society

that we are discussing. Sadly, under the Conservative Government, the equality of women has taken many huge steps backwards. That is why I support the Opposition amendment, and why, if the House divides, I shall vote against the Government.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: In the end, the speech of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) presented a rather utilitarian view of womanhood. Perhaps it is the over-emphasis on mechanical feminist issues that puts some Conservative Members off women's affairs. However, I welcome this debate. It has been a good discussion, and it is good for men to sit through such an occasion. I have listened and learnt.
I endorse wholeheartedly the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). In a later intervention, the hon. Lady criticised my right hon. Friend for failing to say anything about the Law Lords' ruling. The extraordinary thing about the hon. Lady's speech was how little she dwelt on how that ruling had come about. It was a massive constitutional innovation, and surely it merited more than the cursory glance that she gave it. From my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a welcome pause is extremely appropriate. A decision of such constitutional magnitude requires some thought before it is responded to.
I shall support the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends, not least because it calls upon the Government to continue their successful policies in the field of opportunities for women. The last 15 years have seen a number of successful initiatives to enhance and promote opportunities and equality for women. Women now have independent and equal taxation; Opportunity 2000 will expand women's opportunities with employers; and there is a drive to increase the number of women in public appointments—to mention just three initiatives.
We are not averse to generous measures such as were provided earlier this week under an EC directive on pregnant workers. The United Kingdom now gives qualifying women a longer period of maternity absence than any other EC member state and, at 18 weeks, one of the longest periods of paid maternity absence. Unlike the law in many member states, United Kingdom legislation gives all women, regardless of length of service or hours worked, a right to paid time off for antenatal care.
But a key part of our policy has been a more laissez-faire attitude to some areas of policy that have benefited women. A higher proportion of women go out to work in Britain than in any other European Community country, except, as has been said, Denmark. Between March 1983 and September 1992, there was an 11 per cent. increase in the number of women in full-time employment and an increase of 29 per cent. in the number in part-time employment. Many women choose to work part time, and the Government's policies have encouraged the development of part-time work within a framework that safeguards employees against exploitation.
The irony of this debate, however, lies in the fact that some of these very opportunities may be choked by last week's court ruling in the name of sex equality. The substance of the Law Lords' ruling on the Equal Opportunities Commission case has serious political and


economic implications for industries dependent heavily on part-time workers. Businesses in my constituency that would be affected include retailers—not just the big ones but the small ones as well. Small business was the main job generator of the 1980s. This ruling strikes a blow against the interests of all small businesses, which hitherto have benefited from the lower costs and flexibility of part-time workers.
Whole industries, such as the restaurant and hotel industry, will be badly hit. The British hospitality industry plays a huge role. In fact, it is our biggest foreign exchange earner, bringing some £8 billion to £9 billion per annum into the United Kingdom. It may be that some Opposition Members do not attach much importance to these aspects of the argument, but many hon. Members support the Government's policy of leaving things as they are. Labour now wants everyone in one form of part-time work or another on a compulsory 35-hour week basis, but we believe that flexible labour markets assist economic growth and add to the general prosperity.
The Opposition may feel gleeful about the court's decision, but surely they should show a hint of anxiety at the fact that their policies do not have the usual democratic consent. We believe that these matters, along with overall conduct of Government policy on labour relations, should be decided here—by Government and Parliament, which are accountable to the electors.

Ms Short: Tory speech after Tory speech has subverted the rule of law. The House of Lords, on a judicial review, was interpreting British law. Tory Members of Parliament are saying that this is intolerable and will have to be overturned. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested that the Government should subvert the ruling.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady demonstrates that she—along with most of her Front-Bench colleagues, I dare say—has absolutely no appreciation of how this ruling has arisen. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listens, she may learn something. Opposition Members cannot claim that this ruling was achieved on the merits of the argument. They will find that the Government made little or no effort in court to establish that the alleged indirect discrimination against women was—in the jargon—objectively justified. The Government were principally contesting the vires of the United Kingdom's courts to rule on this matter at all. [Interruption.] If hon. Members listen, they may learn something.
The House of Lords ruled that aspects of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 are incompatible with Community law. As the leader in The Times of 5 March pointed out, the ruling has, in effect, struck down as "unconstitutional" an Act of Parliament. That the Law Lords did such a thing demonstrates a new and perhaps alarming boldness. They could more tactfully have referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. Instead, as The Times suggests—correctly, I believe—Britain now effectively has a constitutional court
which opens up the possibility, which many would regard as alarming, of Acts of Parliament being subjected to trial by judicial review, by pressure groups of all descriptions, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, the Child Poverty Action Group",
or the CBI, the National Association for Freedom, the National Front,

various trade unions, Greenpeace and even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds",
come what may.
When we wanted to join the European Community, it was not explained that we would be setting up our own courts to compete with us as law makers in matters such as this. I invite hon. Members to speculate on the outrage and uproar that would have been caused had it been explained during the passage of the European Community's legislation or the subsequent referendum that that was how European Community law would develop. We should feel that sense of outrage now.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the reasons why we signed up to the treaty of Rome and why people voted in the referendum to continue to accede to it was that we agreed with much of what it said, including its clear statement on equality?

Mr. Jenkin: When the argument was made for Britain to join the European Community—it is extraordinary how this relates to sexual equality, but it does—we were told that we were giving up certain aspects of our trade policy so that it could be handled together and that we were handing over control of agriculture and fishing because those matters would be better organised together. It was not explained in detail that we could finish up with new bodies creating legislation in our land. On the contrary, the cry during the referendum was, "You've always got a veto. No decision that affects British interests can be made without a British Minister being present."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said in the House that there would be no federation. He wrote in the White Paper that there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) must try to justify those matters in her own mind as we carry on down this road.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) appears to want this country to be run from Brussels? The Opposition are federalists.

Mr. Jenkin: In the unlikely event that the Opposition were ever elected and had to face the stringent free market discipline that the Community also embodies, which is why the Conservatives always were a pro-European party—

Ms Short: They are not any more.

Mr. Jenkin: We remain pro-European because we understand how free trade binds nations together. If the Opposition ever suffered the monetary discipline embodied in stages 2 and 3 of monetary union—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech once before on that issue and it was certainly not about sex discrimination. I hope that he will return to the issue that we are supposed to be debating.

Mr. Jenkin: I accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will return to the point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) is right. The Opposition want this country to be run from Brussels because they cannot themselves get elected.
We should feel a sense of outrage because, only last summer, Madam Speaker gave a ruling to uphold article 9 of the Bill of Rights. An Opposition Member had complained that a court was questioning parliamentary privilege. Madam Speaker considered the matter to be of sufficient gravity to rule on it herself rather than refer it to the Committee of Privileges. She said:
There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights, and that Act places a statutory prohibition on the questioning of our proceedings. Article 9 of the Act reads:
'that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."'.—[Official Report, 21 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 351–2.]
Who can possibly say that the Equal Opportunities Commission or their Lordships have respected article 9 of the Bill of Rights? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to question the Speaker's ruling, I suggest that she rises to her feet and does so.

Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to do so—another sex change tonight. I merely wish to point out that their Lordships are part of this Parliament, so the hon. Gentleman's criticism is misapplied.

Mr. Jenkin: The case was originally brought in the Divisional Court and the affect of the ruling is that the Divisional Court can now rule an Act of Parliament illegal. The hon. Lady must accept that she is wrong on that point.
The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 was passed after the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1971 and presumably in the full knowledge of it, and after the relevant Community legislation had also been agreed.
So what can we do in the light of that ruling? We can choose to accept the ruling. What that means for sexual equality and employment policy in the United Kingdom is that, as the Labour party wants, hon. and right hon. Members who sit on the Treasury Bench, whether they be Conservative or Labour, are to become mere agents and emissaries of a policy that is decided elsewhere. Instead of being servants of this House, they must be the apologists of others.
Under that ruling, the Law Lords have treated Parliament no differently from an errant local authority that has passed some unreasonable bye-laws or an employment scheme run by a private company. In the forthcoming European elections, let the Opposition parties tell voters that that is what they want Parliament's status to be.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not negotiate an opt-out of the social chapter for it to be nullified so quickly in this way. In The Economist of 25 September 1993 he wrote that Britain had successfully used the Maastricht negotiations to reassert the authority of national Governments. One must assume that he was talking about sexual equality legislation as much as anything else. He went on to say:
It is clear now that the Community will remain a union of sovereign national states. That is what its peoples want: to take decisions through their own Parliaments.
It is for nations to build Europe, not for Europe to attempt to supersede nations.
I applaud those comments.
For the Government now to continue their successful policies they must pursue a number of options. They could reassert Parliament's authority by ignoring the ruling, and

contest the claims on substantive information as and when they arise, objectively justifying the case that we wish to make. Better still, we could enact a declaratory Bill in which we deem the Government's policy to be "objectively justified"—the correct term—but this would only buy time. What we need is to extend the social chapter opt-out into something much more comprehensive in order to regain control of sex equality and employment legislation.
We must opt out of articles 117 onwards of the Rome treaty, for this judgment was based not on the Maastricht treaty or even on the Single European Act but on articles contained in the original treaty of Rome. Subsidiarity is perhaps an argument that we should use, that these policies should be handled at the level of the nation state and not be in the treaty at all. Why was subsidiarity an argument not used in the ruling?
I agree with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who, in his Stockton lecture last Thursday, attacked "Eurosclerosis" and complained:
We burden our business with extra costs, preventing labour markets from working properly, stifling the regenerative processes of the capitalist system".
He could have been talking about this ruling. Emboldened by those words, these options surely merit his further consideration.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who said on Monday in Brussels:
We should make our labour markets more flexible and job-friendly…That means not introducing new limitations on the labour market.
The Secretary of State exactly echoed those sentiments this afternoon, but since this ruling does exactly what he abjures, the proposals to scale down the Community's social ambitions surely invite his further judgment.
I applaud the Foreign Secretary's remarks in Brussels:
A community which forgets that its legitimacy derives from its electors"—
Opposition Members would do well to remember this—
is turning its back, not just on the constraints of democracy but on the wisdom of democracy.
What sort of Government will the British people be able to elect if they are compelled by the interpretation of European law to pursue policies to which they would otherwise be fundamentally opposed?
We all agree that sovereignty requires to be pooled for a common good, but should it be a crime to ask "How much?" or perhaps to say, "Too much"? The one real chance that we have to express this is at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. I have no doubt that we shall be reviled and hated by the chattering classes of all the European nations for standing up against the inevitable march, so-called, of European history. We should, however, make sure that future Governments are able to carry out the policies on sexual equality and employment, as all else, for which we are elected.

9 pm

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I think that we have just heard a speech in favour of sex discrimination—I found it really sad.
May I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on initiating this debate? Given that it is the


first of its kind for 20 years, I hope that we will not have to wait another 20 years for the next. I hope that we can repeat it every six months.
I begin by paying tribute to the last Labour Government who gave us equal opportunities legislation. It is sad that the past 15 years have seen no improvement whatever. If anything, we have gone backwards under the Conservative Government. In 1970 I worked in a factory where I was paid less for doing exactly the same job as the men there. Many of my women friends deeply resented this. Some of them felt undervalued and inferior. I felt very angry, and I was very pleased when we had the first equal opportunities legislation. The Government, however, have not built on it.
In the area that I want to concentrate on—low pay and how the gap has widened and the discrimination worsened—it is still the case that women in full-time work earn, on average, only 72 per cent. of men's full-time salaries. It means that two thirds of the six million workers earning less than the European decency threshold are women. Black women take home less pay than white women, so there is a further level of discrimination there.
In the public sector, where women do the majority of jobs and where some occupations are almost entirely female, the picture of poverty pay in women's pockets still holds true. Three-quarters of ancillary health workers, two-thirds of local government manual workers, and most nurses and administrative and clerical staff, are women. In 1993, 61 per cent. of women in the health service's administrative and clerical jobs earned less than £220 a week, compared with 27 per cent. of men. These are some of the better paid jobs in the national health service.
The Minister told us that the average wage was £250 a week. They would have been glad to see that. In ancillary work, where part-timers form two thirds of the workforce, part-time women earned 42p an hour less than full-time men. On high or low grades, the story is exactly the same. The Government bear a large responsibility for this discrimination continuing and worsening. Their worship of the free market at the expense of all other considerations has increased inequality and encouraged discrimination.
The contracting out of ancillary jobs has left domestics, laundry workers and others taking a direct cut in wages as contractors put in lower bids than in-house tenders. It has also led to cuts in sickness benefit and holiday pay and a lack of pension rights. It has been hailed by the Government as a success story—but not for low-paid workers.
Over the years, I have tabled amendments to the employment legislation on the plight of home workers, who represent the lowest paid, least protected, most exploited part of the sweatshop work force that the Government have done so much to encourage.
The majority of home workers are women. I have found women home workers working for 28p an hour packing Christmas cards that are sold in Woolworths. I interviewed a pregnant woman who sat up all night for as little as 50p an hour knitting garments that sold in the high street for £100. That is not the world of Tory ladies such as the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) or for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). As the debate has progressed, I have realised that we come from different worlds.
In Britain we have gender segregation, grade inequality, a lower value placed on many jobs where women are in the majority and job evaluation schemes that discriminate

against women. Unequal access to pay enhancements such as bonuses, weekend additions and overtime pay account for most of the difference between the pay of men and women in manual work. There is a great deal of work to be done to end that discrimination in pay.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: Certainly not.
There is also discrimination against part-time workers in grading and enhancements.
The abolition of the wages councils has already been mentioned. Wages councils were the only protection for the lowest paid people in Britain, who are mainly women. The Yorkshire and Humberside low pay unit carried out a survey in my constituency of Halifax—a very low-paid area. It found that since last year when the wages councils were scrapped, nearly one fifth of the vacancies in former wages council industries are now on offer at the Halifax job centre at 20 per cent. below the old minimum rate.
A hairdressing job that last August paid £2.88 per hour is now on offer at £2 a hour. Is that progress? Is it what the Government think is good for Britain? Those women shop in the same marketplace as Conservative Members. They will be paying the same increased VAT on their domestic fuel, yet their pay has been reduced by 20 per cent.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is now an essential part of the Government's economic policy? Only two weeks ago, I happened to overhear a conversation in one of the male toilets in the House. Two Conservative Members were somewhat irate about the accusation that they were anti-women. One of them said to the other, "For God's sake, don't they understand that the vast majority of jobs that do not go to the third world go to women?" Does not that reflect their dependence on widening, not narrowing the gap of exploitation?

Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It says it all about Conservative Members and what they think the British work force is worth. That is the value they put on workers.
The Tory record—

Mr. Duncan: That is the economic reality, luvvy.

Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman said that that is the economic reality. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made £50,000 out of selling a council house. Opposition Members know too well the economic reality of that kind of chicanery from watching the antics on the Conservative Benches.
The Tory record on low pay has been well argued by other hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, who is on the Front Bench. I shall dwell on what I believe needs to be done to end low pay and the discrimination against women in the work force. We need urgent reform of equal pay legislation.
It was interesting to see the attack by Conservative Members on the House of Lords decision. The House of Lords simply found the Government guilty of discrimination against part-time workers.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the important thing about the Law Lords' ruling was that it was linked to European legislation? The key thing that the European Community has done for sex


discrimination legislation is to insist that countries keep records. The statistics again and again place Britain at the bottom of the league. Does my hon Friend recognise that the Law Lords have, for once, done a major service in recognising what I would have expected the whole House to recognise? Labour Members would have expressed delight; Conservative Members would have said, "Well, it's a fair cop." I would have expected the House to accept that the ruling has at least done something for low-paid workers in this country.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Law Lords recognised what was a clear injustice and put it right. I found it quite distasteful that very privileged younger Conservative Members, who clearly have no idea of working for the wages that we are talking about, spent 20 minutes filibustering to keep people out of the debate. I found that so disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There has been no filibustering this evening.

Ms Rachel Squire: In view of her last point, does my hon. Friend agree that having listened at length to the comments of Conservative Members, perhaps we should propose that the industry and Parliament trust scheme is extended to enable Conservative Members to spend 28 days working as low-paid part-time workers in offices, shops and factories to help them appreciate the real world?

Mrs. Mahon: What a splendid suggestion.

Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Mahon: There are no circumstances under which I will give way to the hon. Lady, who took half an hour to make a speech that completely trivialised what is a very serious inequality. She had her time. If she could not make a case—and she certainly did not—I am not giving way.
I think that, first, the equal opportunities legislation needs to be simplified, and, secondly, the burden of proof for justifying inequality in pay should rest clearly with the employer. We should end the nonsense where the employee has to go out and make a case. It should rest fairly and squarely where it belongs—with the employer. Perhaps we could then see some more decent employment practices coming into being.
I feel very strongly that the law should allow for group actions, and shift away from individual remedies, because women have become absolutely exhausted over the years going through the hoops of the law on an individual basis—we are pleased with the cases that have been won, and applaud them—only to find that when they return to the work force, they have to start all over again. How much better it would have been had they been acting for a whole group of women, and did not have to start all over again to get some justice.
There must certainly be an end to the system that allows employers to circumvent equality legislation. Following the passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970, job segregation increased. I welcomed the legislation of the mid-1970s, because I had been a victim of inequality; there is no doubt, however, that the five-year lead-in to implementation of the Equal Pay Act resulted in unprecedented arrangements in which bad employers segregated the sexes, putting women in "women's jobs" and men in "men's jobs".
The "equal value" amendment was designed to deal with that; but there is increasing evidence that young men are being employed in what are traditionally female jobs—for instance, as hospital domestics. A deliberate attempt is being made to prevent the pursuing of equal-value cases. The labour market is being desegregated to perpetuate low pay and avoid the achievement of equality.

Ms Rachel Squire: A good example of that is provided by the equal value claim made by five hospital domestics at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Ten years ago, they had the audacity to claim that their work was of equal value to that of a hospital porter and a hospital groundsman. The Government and the health board involved have wasted £1 million of public money in doing everything possible to prevent the making of equal value awards. That is an example of the Government's commitment to equal value and equal pay.

Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend has made her point very well; that is indeed a shameful example.
If the Government are serious about ending sex discrimination, especially in regard to pay, I believe that they could take many steps now to improve the position of women. Let me list them: I do not expect that the Government will do anything, but I think it is worth putting them on record.
All Opposition Members believe that a minimum wage is desperately needed. People are having to sweat to take home the rates that I mentioned earlier: following the abolition of wages councils, people who were earning as little as £2.88 an hour now earn £2 an hour, after just a few months. They desperately need protection. We are out of step with the rest of Europe and with America, which has a minimum wage. Surely the minimum wage is a basic right.
I also think that part timers and home workers should be given equal employment rights—which means extending some form of health and safety cover to the people, mainly women, who work at home and who are currently the most exploited workers in the country. Home working is on the increase. It is very convenient for spivs who want to make a fast buck; those whom they persuade to work at home have no protection. The work is completely flexible, and the women concerned are using their own light and heating. It is a truly exploitative, third-world practice.
We should bring back pay protection for workers in all low-paid industries. We should also extend maternity leave to 18 weeks, and bring it into line with maternity pay. We should ensure that all children have access to nursery places. We should make a commitment to improving and protecting universal child benefit, which is very important to women.
Conservative Members have praised the women who stay at home to look after their families, and Opposition Members would do the same; we do not force women to go out to work if they do not wish to do so, and it is nonsense to suggest that we do. Women at home with children, however, are the only women with no access to any form of benefit apart from child benefit, which they go and collect themselves rather than waiting for their husbands to give it to them.
The Government should reform the state pension scheme, although there is little hope of their doing so. I think that the pension age should be equalised at 60 for both sexes.
We have to keep low pay in the news. We have to keep showing what is happening to the flexible third-world work force that the Government have done so much to promote. We have to keep examining low pay, its growth and its effect on the work force because it is not good for Britain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that women are most likely to spend their disposable income locally and in local shops? Cutting women's disposable income, therefore, does more to damage small businesses, which the Conservative party claims to support, than anything else.

Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was well said.
If the Government believe that their strategy of promoting a low-pay, flexible work force will enable Britain to compete equally with its competitors in Europe in the next century, they are mistaken and they will damage our chances.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on her speech. She spoke very much from her own experience and with considerable knowledge, unlike many Conservative Members.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Jo Richardson. I was in her team for a year and I know how fiercely she fought her disability and how she continued to carry the banner high for women in the House and outside. She was committed to equality of opportunity. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingam, Ladywood (Ms Short) is carrying the banner in her place. It could not pass to a better person.
Everyone knows that ideas on men and women start almost in the cradle. Jo Richardson would have enjoyed part of this debate, but would have despaired at some of the attitudes expressed by Conservative Members. Recently, two primary school teachers in Wales asked the boys in their classes to write about the girls and the girls to write about the boys. Some of the pieces that were written, especially those by the younger children, are worth reading. They wrote:
girls wear beads and high heels…Boys stand up at the toilet, girls sit down.
Some children wrote "no good" or "rubbish", and quite a lot used the description "fat". Boys were frequently described as
strong, noisy and keen on sport.
Girls were described as "weak, quiet and scared." Some boys said:
girls are cissies, boys aren't, they're brave".
It is not surprising that, even now, the GCSE education choices of English school children show substantial gender stereotyping, a matter that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who unfortunately was unable to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. More than twice as many boys as girls study computer science and physics, whereas nearly twice as many girls as boys study music, drama and biology. The degree courses of students are also divided on gender lines.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned discrimination in sport. Despite their tremendous achievements, women are too

often treated as second-class citizens. That is totally unacceptable at the latter end of the 20th century, but there has been one good piece of news today. Jill Bridge, who is 27, today became the second woman managing director of an English football club—Blackpool. Only two of the 92 clubs in England have women managing directors, so there is still a long way to go.
According to the Advertising Standards Authority, complaints about the sexual portrayal of women in advertisements trebled from 180 in 1992 to 536 last year. Last year, 56 complaints were upheld against one advertisement showing a young woman and the words:
She's terrific in bed. She's witty, intelligent and makes her own pasta. She doesn't have a Linn Hi-Fi, but her sister does, and she's the one I married.
However, the Independent Television Commission let Danepak bacon off the hook despite complaints. Its advertisement showed a family of nudists cooking bacon and giving thanks that the low-fat product was less likely to spit in the pan.
There have been few changes on television. Presenter Fiona Armstrong left GMTV rather than shorten her skirts, as she was instructed to do by her bosses. There is, of course, a different set of standards altogether for women performers. The policy still seems to be, "Hire them for their age and looks and fire them for their age and looks." How many women can we recall who appear regularly on television and look like some of the men—grey haired, balding and with bags under their eyes? It seems that only men can grow old and show it on the box.
It is therefore not surprising that, after 60 years of campaigning, Millicent Fawcett wrote to a group of women:
You know from your own experience that equal pay and equal opportunity are still withheld from us. I shall expect to see you, individually and collectively, putting your shoulders to that wheel, and pushing the car of progress along in your generation as we did in ours.
That was not advice that the former Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, thought worthy of note. In 1982 she claimed:
The battle for women's rights has largely been won. The days when they were demanded and discussed in strident tones should be gone forever.
As many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), have said, we have made some progress, but there is still a long way to go.
There was a time when it was believed that the Almighty had designed men especially to be judges, Prime Ministers and captains of industry and women to be secretaries, housewives and hairdressers, but not, it seems, to be priests in the Church of England. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has shown her lack of commitment to women very clearly. She said that she was opposing the ordination of women because she believed that
it is theologically impossible for women to perform the specific role of sacramental priesthood.
She went on to explain her outrage by saying:
considering the way the Church of England has been going over the past 2 or 3 decades, it would not in the least surprise me if one day I attended a nativity play and found that the Virgin Mary had a beard.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend note the fact this month marks the 25th anniversary of the Church of Scotland


ordaining its first women minister? There are now more than 100 such ministers and not a single thunderbolt has hit any kirk in those 25 years.

Mrs. Clwyd: I congratulate the Church of Scotland and hope that the Minister takes note.
To the question, "Are women breaking into the top jobs in a big way?", the answer must be no. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seems to believe that people become Members of Parliament on merit alone. If that were the case, I assure her that there would be more women here now. The Cabinet contains two women, and there are only 60 female Members of Parliament. A survey in The Economist of the 100 top establishment posts showed that the number held by women had increased from two in 1972 to—wait for it—four in 1992. Men still rule the roost in Whitehall, despite a campaign launched by the Prime Minister two years ago to open up opportunities for women civil servants. New figures show that 90 per cent. of the highest-paid mandarins are men. Of course, Whitehall's huge female work force outnumbers its male work force, but women are confined mainly to typing, catering and cleaning.
The Employment Secretary, who is, as we know, also the Minister for women, recently admitted that he did not know how the drive for equal opportunities was progressing. That is not surprising, since he spent only one hour in the Chamber today. In an interview in The Guardian last year, headed "Our Man in the Cabinet", he was asked what his priorities would be. He said:
taking up the cudgels on behalf of women in the workforce.
The article goes on say:
When asked what his priorities will be, Hunt studies some typed notes on his desk on which several key paragraphs have been etched in yellow highlighter pen. 'We want to develop childcare and out-of-school and holiday childcare. I want a wide range of opportunities for women,'…how near is the Government to achieving this? 'I haven't been able to make a full assessment of the position yet,…come back and ask me in a month.
Nine months later, we are still waiting for him to tell us. He certainly did not tell us this afternoon. Again, we know why and we are grateful to The Guardian for the information. He has gone to Detroit. It says that the Employment Secretary and the Chancellor
are preparing to descend on the Detroit job summit next week to lecture the world on the best way to provide quality employment opportunities…In readiness, they have produced a glossy, 16-page book titled The UK Approach.
We know all about the UK approach. In the Employment Secretary's own Department, only two of its top civil servants are women, while only three of its 719 typists are men. I collected data from 15 Ministries which show that there are 69 women among 686 civil servants in the top four grades. At the Education Department, no women who have jobs in the top four grades, yet nearly half its staff are women. At the Foreign Office, all but three of the 819 secretaries and typists are women, but there is only one woman employed in the 31 top jobs.
What happened to Opportunity 2000? The truth is that, despite so many of the Government's claims, women are still in the low-paid, comparatively menial jobs in the civil service, yet the Government continue to pat themselves on the back and say that they are encouraging women to reach their true potential.
The Tory record on promoting equal opportunity has not exactly been impressive. As we have heard today, they have done nothing to plug the loopholes in the Sex Discrimination Act or in the Equal Pay Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) noted, Britain, much to our shame, has been brought before the European Court of Justice for its failures on equality more often than any other country in the European Union.
The Government seem to have gone out of their way to block or to scupper every EU directive which improves the position of women in the work force. They have blocked directives on parental leave, on part-time workers and on working time. They have gone out of their way to block any progressive social legislation. British maternity rights are still the worst in the European Union. The Government have removed the right of women to return to work after childbirth, and although they have been forced to agree the minimum 14 weeks of maternity leave, perhaps the Minister could explain the absurdity of a system which gives women 18 weeks maternity pay, but only 14 weeks maternity leave. The Government have removed the right of women who work in small firms to return to work after childbirth. They have removed the right of women to have child care costs taken into account when claiming income support.
Despite the fact that the European courts and the House of Lords have forced the Government to concede some of the more blatant aspects of their continuing discrimination against women, the Government have fought tooth and nail all the way to resist. Unlike Conservative Members, we want a Europe that sets high social standards. The social chapter represents a set of basic standards to which civilised industrial nations should aspire.
In opting out of the social chapter the Government have sought to deprive the workers of Britain of the rights and protection that workers in other European Union countries take for granted. The Government's double whammy in the workplace, through privatisation and deregulation, has robbed women of health and safety provision and of protection against unfair dismissal and exploitation, and has given them poverty wages.
Three quarters of those protected by wages councils were women, so scrapping the councils has given yet more opportunities to cut wages in jobs heavily dominated by women workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) told us that the poor in this country are largely women. She also mentioned the isolation and poverty wages of home workers, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. If the Government do not tackle low pay and unequal pay and provide help with child care, women cannot in any sense be equal or have equal rights. There is no point in asking industry to promote equal opportunities policies when many have to be enshrined in a legal framework, or employers will take not a blind bit of notice.
As even the Secretary of State conceded, the Government have presided over the most dramatic change in the role of women. In the past 20 years, there has been an increase of 2 million in the number of women in the work force and a fall of 2.8 million in the number of men. As everybody has said during the debate, those positions are mainly part time, and part-time work brings with it fewer employment rights and lower rates of pay.
Last September, there were 10.6 million men and 10.3 million women at work. In 11 counties in Britain, women already form the majority of the work force. Even


Essex working man may be a thing of the past, because in Essex there are more women working than men. It may already be true that in Britain the typical worker is a woman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) mentioned the conflict that can occur between home and work. The Health and Safety Executive reckons that 40 million working days a year are lost because of stress-related illness. What better argument could there be for the Government to agree to the parental leave directive?
The rapid growth of the number of women in the work force needs new thinking, new policies, new attitudes and new expectations. The Government must face up to that by supporting the parental leave directive, providing adequate child care facilities, offering part-time workers more of the same rights as full-time workers have, bringing Britain into line with the rest of the European Union and providing a statutory minimum wage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax and many others have said today, a minimum wage would reduce the large and growing pay gap between men and women, thereby reducing the need for many people at work to claim benefits that in the end are funded by the taxpayer.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon), who has taken part in the debate, be here for the wind-up?

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady. She is speaking much too quickly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was asking, Madam Speaker, whether it was a matter of courtesy to the House for those who have taken part in the debate, such as the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, to be here for the wind-up?

Madam Speaker: It is certainly a custom of the House for those who have taken part in a debate to be present for the wind-up.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Where is the Secretary of State?

Madam Speaker: Order. Not only this evening hut on other evenings I have made a note of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate yet are not usually here for the wind-up. I have noted tonight, as on every other occasion, those who are not present for the wind-up.

Mrs. Clwyd: Of course, Madam Speaker, we understand that the Secretary of State—our Minister for women—is in Detroit giving the people there the benefit of his experience of how to destroy 3 million jobs during a Government's period in office. Instead of the Government's nauseating hypocrisy about "back to basics", why do they not give a genuine political commitment to support men, women and families in the ways that we have suggested'?
In the end, equality of opportunity is determined by the attitudes, self-confidence and persistence of women. Generally speaking, whenever women have pushed on the door, they have usually found that it was not really locked. Sometimes, it has needed a good hard shove and thousands of women with intelligence and talent have lived tragically wasted lives because it opened too late for them. As the

Government cannot or will not help to open the door, it is Labour who will gladly tackle the deprivation and discrimination that the majority of women suffer. Women's voices will be heard, but not by the deaf ears of this corrupt, incompetent and uncaring Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I join the tributes that were paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the two Opposition spokesmen to the late Jo Richardson. It is a sad event that we are having this debate and she is not able to be present. She was always an extremely good proponent of women's rights. As one who sometimes opposed her—not on women's rights but various other issues—I have to say that she was always a very straight fighter. She is a major loss to the House, and I am delighted to join the tributes that have so far been paid.
Having begun on a friendly note, I regret that I must now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). That speech was a wasted opportunity. The hon. Lady thoroughly trivialised a very serious subject. She carefully avoided acknowledg-ing any advances that had been made. She found every European comparison statistic that was bad, and carefully avoided any that were good. She raised a number of issues on which she said Britain lagged behind the rest of Europe, and then utterly failed to address areas where we are ahead.
The hon. Lady even had the audacity to suggest that this Government are interested in exploiting working children. She failed completely to point out that British law is stronger than the proposed directive in terms of the hours that children may work early and late, and in terms of the limits for hours of work during school holidays. Of course, she did not say that.
The hon. Lady rightly called for investment in skills. But did she then welcome general and national vocational qualifications? Did she then welcome national vocational qualifications? Did she then welcome investment in people? Did she then welcome the national training targets? Did she then welcome the education and business partnerships'? She did not. She merely called for investment in training, and then ignored the fact that it has been going on while Labour has been asleep.
The hon. Lady raised what is admittedly an extremely sad case: that of a man in his fifties who was finding it difficult to get a job. As a result of that, did she welcome the Government's "getting on" campaign? Did she welcome the raising of the training age? She did not. She blamed the Government for an increase in crime, and comfortably ignored the fact that crime is increasing in every western country. Presumably the Government are to blame for that as well.
The hon. Lady concentrated on what she saw as Britain's disadvantage in maternity pay. She quietly forgot to acknowledge that we have the longest period of absence, with 40 weeks, or that 18 weeks is one of the longest periods of pay. What a speech. What a wasted opportunity. What a trivialisation of a serious subject.
I come then to the speech of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). Normally, I would not comment on the fact that she is absent. The reason I do comment on it is that she had the crying impudence to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for being absent. My


right hon. Friend is preparing for a jobs summit. I do not know what the hon. Lady is doing, but I somehow doubt that it is entirely comparable.
The hon. Lady's statistics were selective. She talked about women being disadvantaged in pensions, but she utterly neglected to mention that this is the only country in Europe where a woman who has never contributed a penny piece can nevertheless draw a pension in her own right when both she and her husband reach retirement age. She omitted to mention that there has been a growth in the numbers of women taking out occupational pensions, and she did not appear to understand the proposals for home responsibility protection.
Once again, she called for skills during career breaks to be recognised, but she did not even mention accredited prior learning, an initiative of my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Lady's speech was not exactly impressive, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) was. My hon. Friend spoke about the participation of women in sport, a serious point which was echoed on both sides of the House. He talked about surveys which show that there has been an increase of 1 million in the number of women taking part in sport from 1987 to 1990. The Government support the Women's Sports Foundation, which was founded in 1984 to raise the profile of women in sport. A nationwide award scheme for girls and young women was launched only last year. Therefore, I must say that that area has not exactly been entirely neglected.
My hon. Friend welcomed Opportunity 2000, and I am sorry that that welcome was not echoed by Opposition Members.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I am terribly sorry. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was not interrupted, and time is extremely pressing. My hon. Friend welcomed Opportunity 2000.

Mr. John Prescott: Get to the serious hit.

Miss Widdecombe: I am going to get to the serious bit. I will demonstrate how the hon. Gentleman, the shadow spokesman for employment, gets the facts wrong time and time again. I hope that he is looking forward to that part of my speech.
Before I come to that, I will mention the reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). She raised the matter of the Law Lords' judgment, as did some of my hon. Friends. This is where I come to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. East (Mr. Prescott) and his statements, and indeed those of the hon. Member for Ladywood. On different occasions, both hon. Members have said that they were delighted by the Law Lords' judgment, because it had driven a coach and horses through the Government's employment policy.
That is interesting, because the maintenance of thresholds of difference between part-time and full-time workers was the policy of both our parties in government since 1963, when the Conservative party first introduced employment rights. Why were we the first to introduce employment rights if the labour party is so concerned about them?
The difference between part-time and full-time work was maintained by the Labour Government in its Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and again in a further Act in 1975. It is nonsense for the Opposition to try to pretend that the Law Lords' judgment drives a coach and horses through a specific piece of Conservative policy. Until recently—when the Labour party saw the chance for a cheap piece of political comment—the Opposition held exactly the same views as we did.
We heard from Opposition Members that there were so few women in top posts. I ask them—can we hear the answer loud and clear?—how many general secretaries of trade unions are women? To save them the embarrassment, I will give the House the answer. There are three, out of 73. That is a great achievement for the Labour party.

Mr. Prescott: What about the Church?

Miss Widdecombe: Opposition Members are no better at theology than they are at politics.
Then we heard an endless list of demands backed up by what appeared to be an equally endless list of spending pledges on child care. It is worth looking at what has happened to child care. If one listened to the Opposition, one would be forgiven for believing that there had been no increase in child care during the Government's term of office. Yet there have been substantial increases. The number of places in registered day nurseries, which are mainly used by working women, grew by 153 per cent. between 1988 and 1992.

Ms Short: In Labour areas.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady suggests that the increases have taken place in Labour areas. In fact, today there are only 23,000 places in 580 local authority-run day nurseries, compared to 29,000 in 1988. So the number of places in local authority nurseries has fallen. In 1992, there were 109,000 registered child minders with places for 254,000 children aged under five. That is an increase of 40 per cent. since 1988.
Why are Opposition Members not welcoming all that? Why are they not cheering? Why are they not delighted at what those increases represent for freeing women to go to work? Why do they sit there with long faces? Why is it that, every time something goes right and someone in Britain benefits, Opposition Members do not like it? It is because they think that we might get some of the credit.
One thing we know for a certainty. They certainly do not appear to get credit for their long spending lists. They have not managed to convince the electorate for a long time. I do not believe that they will be able to convince the electorate for an even longer time to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred to positive discrimina-tion. I know that the issue embarrasses the Labour party. It must be especially embarrassing to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, who replied to the debate for the Labour party. Positive discrimination did not work for Labour Members who contested shadow Cabinet places. Positive discrimination does not work. All it does is result in is a thoroughly patronising attitude to women.
At present, every woman who sits in this House—I sincerely hope that the numbers are set to multiply—knows that she got here on her own merits. She was not


handed it as a patronising gift from men. It is my ambition that every woman who sits in the House in future will also be able to sit here on her own merits.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) suggested that to choose a man as Minister for women was rather odd and an insult to women. But if we seriously believe that only women can represent women, there must be an argument that only men can represent men. It does not take us much further forward. It is a remarkably silly argument. We all represent all our electorate. We would do well to remember that 50 per cent. of our electorate are men.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) mentioned of private clubs. I entirely understand the difficulties that face women over private clubs. I understand the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman made, and I would not seek to minimise it. Nevertheless, if we are to have freedom of association and people are to be able to get together and form private clubs which they fund, it is right that they should have the freedom to do so.

Mr. Maxton: I might accept that that might just be justifiable where clubs are funded entirely by their members' own means. However, I have grave reservations about that, when clubs take large amounts of land which is designated for use for leisure activities, and use it exclusively for men. When they then expect to receive rates relief and grants from the Sports Council for their activities, it is time that the Government put their foot down and said enough was enough.

Miss Widdecombe: That is not an argument for amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which we are considering today, although it might be an argument for considering means of encouraging, rather than compelling, such clubs to consider their rules.
The Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) was very critical of the fact that this is the first time that we have debated the Act since its inception, and the hon. Lady said that it was the Government's fault. Have there been no other Opposition Supply days in the past 20 years'? If it was so overwhelmingly important, why have not only the Government but the Opposition not put the subject forward for debate? The hon. Lady criticised us for abolishing wages councils. I do not remember her uttering any criticism of the abolition of 11 wages councils by the previous Labour Government. In fact, there was no criticism at all.
What proves the Government's commitment is no the words we have heard from the Opposition, but what has been happening. Let me tell the House what has happened. We now have more women in full-time work; more women in part-time work; more women receiving and contributing to occupational pensions; more women rising higher in their place of work. Women are better able to choose their patterns of work. More women are breaking through in sport. There are more women in education—the Opposition did not mention that—and more women in public organisations. Real wages are 50 per cent. higher.
We have managed to achieve all that without patronising women through positive discrimination. We have managed—

Mr. Prescott: More women in the Church.

Miss Widdecombe: The Conservative party had the first woman Prime Minister, and the Labour party has never got over that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Last but not least, what about the poor men? Sex discrimination means that there should not be discrimination against either sex. Quite honestly, the poor old men have had it quite hard too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Until recently, they had to work five years longer than women for their pensions, in spite of living five years shorter. Until recently, they were expected to bear the sole responsibility for being a breadwinner and the sole responsibility for fighting the nation's battles.
They also had the horrible prospect of being regarded with unremitting hostility by the massed ranks of the Labour sisterhood. To them are not the opportunities of part-time work; to them are not the same opportunities of flexible work. Where are the career breaks for men? Why have those things for so long been regarded as the prerogative of women? The Government's initiatives in relation to part-time work and flexible work, and encouraging new ways to work, are bringing liberation to workers of both sexes.
I suppose that it is possible—I admit that I would be rather satisfied if it happened—that in 20 years' time men will be sitting here, earnestly claiming their rights in the face of 600 women Members of Parliament. In fact, I have never really understood why the 300 Group limits itself so much. I have never understood either why those limits also seem to apply to what Opposition Members have to say.

Mr. Prescott: There is no need to shout; you only have two minutes.

Miss Widdecombe: I have no need to shout to the hon. Gentleman—for the very simple reason that, no matter how loudly anyone speaks, the hon. Gentleman somehow never appears to hear. Even when he hears, he does not understand.
Had they been here, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor would have been interested in Labour Members' spending pledges—universal child care, vast extensions to maternity pay, all the costs that would go with a long series of amendments. Is it still the Labour party's attitude that it can promise anything and cost nothing? If so, the result will be just what it was last time.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 303.

Division No. 160]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Adams, Mrs Irene
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bell, Stuart


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Austin-Walker, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Boyes, Roland


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith


Battle, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy






Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Henderson, Doug


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Home Robertson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Keen, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Darling, Alistair
Khabra, Piara S.


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCrea, Rev William


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew


Enright, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Etherington, Bill
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McNamara, Kevin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Alice


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mandelson, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Marek, Dr John


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward





Olner, William
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pickthall, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Spellar, John


Pope, Greg
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Joan


Redmond, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Reid, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Watson, Mike


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Ayes:


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Ancram, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clappison, James


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Budgen, Nicholas
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield,
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael





Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speed, Sir Keith
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spencer, Sir Derek
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waller, Gary


Spring, Richard
Ward, John


Sproat, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waterson, Nigel


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sweeney, Walter
Wilkinson, John


Sykes, John
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thomason, Roy
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Michael Brown.


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Question on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 253.

Division No. 161]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Brown, M. (Brigg  Cl'thorpes)


Alexander, Richard
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Booth, Hartley
Curry, David (Skipton  Ripon)


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brandreth, Gyles
Dorrell, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bright, Graham
Dover, Den






Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Gardiner, Sir George
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Tredinnick, David


Shersby, Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Sir Keith
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stewart, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sykes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cohen, Harry


Adams, Mrs Irene
Connarty, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cryer, Bob


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Darling, Alistair


Beggs, Roy
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dewar, Donald


Berts, Clive
Dixon, Don


Boateng, Paul
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Ms Angela


Byers, Stephen
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Faulds, Andrew


Clapham, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Flynn, Paul


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clelland, David
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Fraser, John


Coffey, Ann
Fyfe, Maria






Galloway, George
Khabra, Piara S.


Gapes, Mike
Kirkwood, Archy


Garrett, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


George, Bruce
Lewis, Terry


Gerrard, Neil
Litherland, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Livingstone, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Godsiff, Roger
Loyden, Eddie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gordon, Mildred
McAllion, John


Graham, Thomas
McAvoy, Thomas


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McCartney, Ian


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCrea, Rev William


Grocott, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Gunnell, John
McKelvey, William


Hain, Peter
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Mike
McLeish, Henry


Hanson, David
McMaster, Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
McNamara, Kevin


Harvey, Nick
McWilliam, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Madden, Max


Henderson, Doug
Mahon, Alice


Heppell, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Marek, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Home Robertson, John
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Meacher, Michael


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Meale, Alan


Hoyle, Doug
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Milburn, Alan


Hutton, John
Miller, Andrew


Ingram, Adam
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Morgan, Rhodri


Jamieson, David
Morley, Elliot


Janner, Greville
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mudie, George


Jowell, Tessa
Mullin, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Murphy, Paul


Keen, Alan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)





O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


O'Hara, Edward
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S  F'sbury)


Olner, William
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Spellar, John


Pope, Greg
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Turner, Dennis


Randall, Stuart
Tyler, Paul


Raynsford, Nick
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Redmond, Martin
Walley, Joan


Reid, Dr John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rendel, David
Wareing, Robert N


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Watson, Mike


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Clare
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes, in the week of International Women's Day, that women in Britain now enjoy exceptionally wide and increasing opportunities underpinned by comprehensive and effective legislation; and calls on the Government to continue to pursue the policies which have made this possible.

Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I apologise for not being present for Friday's debate; I had to attend a public inquiry in my constituency.
It is clear that the Government did not consult adequately before encouraging the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) to present his Bill. The Rights Of Way Review Committee has been established for a long time—chaired originally by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr Spicer), more recently by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and now by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).
I am sure that, if the Department of Transport had consulted that committee, the problems that have now cropped up could have been avoided; I am delighted, however, that a fairly hasty consultation has taken place today. I hope that the Minister will confirm that tomorrow he will formally accept two amendments that will be proposed, and that, when he draws up the regulations, he will meet the requirements of ramblers and others who use footpaths.
If we vote this motion down, the Government will have a fairly red face, but the taxpayer will save a small amount; however, the tour de France—which is coming to Britain in the summer—will be considerably embarrassed. The Government are trying to rush the measure through to make it possible to close the highway, enabling the event to take place.
That strikes me as admirable; the worry is that the definition of a highway covers not only tarmacked roads but footpaths. Ramblers fear that it may be used to close footpaths for up to three days, causing them considerable inconvenience. I hope that the amendments will be carried tomorrow, and that that fear will be alleviated as a result.
One or two cynics believe that the measure is much more expensive for the Government than it might have been, because the hon. Member for Hexham was persuaded to take the Bill on board in return for the provision of a bypass. No doubt the Minister will deny that. I will not say that I want a motorway in my constituency in return for my co-operation—although I would be quite pleased if the Government could speed up the Denton-Middleton part of the M66.
I would settle for something much more modest from the Minister. I think that, when the first order is declared to close a road, he should simply ride a bicycle along the road at some speed, proclaiming that the order is in place.
Seriously, I hope that the Minister will confirm that he will ensure that the amendments go through tomorrow, or, failing that, that they will be tabled in the Lords; and that the regulations will allay the fears of the ramblers and other groups.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Bill was passed on Friday, and the money is obviously needed. Let me suggest a way of dealing with the matter quite easily.
There are tentative proposals to widen the M I to God knows how many lanes between junctions 28 and 32. In Derbyshire and South Yorkshire people do not want that motorway to be widened, so I suggest that the Government could use the £200 million they would have had to spend on it to pay for the Bill, which will enable the tour de France to take place in parts of southern Britain.

Mr. Bennett: I shall leave the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend's intervention.
I want assurances from the Minister that the amendments will be made to the Bill, and I want assurances about the regulations. What is even more important from the ramblers' point of view, we need assurances that his Department will consult the Rights of Way Review Committee before it introduces highway legislation that affects footpaths. That committee has done an extremely useful job during the 10 or 12 years of its existence,

Mr. Bob Cryer: The Bill, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", states:
the Bill is not expected to result in any significant increase in public expenditure.
However, by passing the money resolution, we shall clearly authorise and give powers to a Minister to spend public money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the tour de France, which is just one major event. Significant costs could arise from the tour, because roads will have to be closed throughout much of our highway network. The legislation does not merely authorise that expenditure, however, as it provides for continuing powers for the Minister, and therefore potentially authorises continuing expenditure.
When Bills are introduced, it is usual for the Government to give some sign of the likely annual expenditure that will result. Will the Minister give the House that calculation? I realise that the amount might be subject to some variation, but surely his Department has made some assessment of the costs involved; otherwise, it would not need this money resolution. I hope that he will tell us what expenditure of taxpayers' money will be involved.

Ms Joan Walley: I endorse what my hon. Friends have said—especially the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). There was a fairly extensive debate on the Bill on Friday, with much filibustering aimed at preventing the debate on women that was to take place later.
During the debate on Friday, it was said that the Ramblers Association had made some out-of-place comments on the Bill. Reading Hansard will clearly show that I asked the Minister whether he would fully consider all the matters that that association brought to his attention.
The money resolution allows us the opportunity to press the Minister for a firm undertaking that the amendments tabled in our names, which will be discussed tomorrow—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Lady must understand that we are discussing the money resolution, not other matters.

Ms Walley: You are right to draw my attention to that fact, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because of the amount of money involved, proper consultation with the local authorities and with the Ramblers Association is crucial to ensure that the provisions that result from the Bill accord with what was genuinely intended by its introduction.
No one wants to stop the tour de France passing through local authority areas in the south of England. However, we must make it clear that we should not use a private Member's Bill to introduce legislation that should properly be introduced by the Government.
I am asking for proper consultation with the Ramblers Association. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, there is a Rights of Way Review Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is straying too far.

Ms Walley: I think that I have made my point, and I look forward to the Minister's comments, because I know that he wants the Bill to reach the statute book.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would not be a bad idea if, at this juncture, we considered the possibility of a new Standing Order to the effect that, before a Minister rises to speak, he must utter the words, "I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can rule tonight.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is promoting the Bill. I shall explain why a money resolution is necessary. It might be useful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if I begin by setting out what the money resolution is all about.
It is a technical resolution, because the Bill is unlikely to result in any overall increase in expenditure out of votes. It is therefore not possible to guess how much money might be involved, and I shall explain why. A money resolution is required because the Bill will in some cases allow traffic authorities to exercise order-making functions, instead of the police in London or district councils in the shires. The resolution is necessary for the potential transfer of costs rather than any net increase.
It is worth noting that we are considering whether to give traffic authorities discretion to charge commercial organisations for making orders under section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which is not possible at the moment. With the exception of the tour de France, most events covered by the Bill have been taking place for many years. I am thinking specifically of the London marathon, a number of carnivals such as that in Notting Hill, the Lewes bonfire party and other bonfire events in southern England. We are discussing transfers, not additional expenditure.
I deal now with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) did not find it

necessary to make representations to us about the Bill, although we should of course have listened carefully had she done so. I understood that ramblers were consulted about the road safety aspects of the tour de France, and it was not through lack of courtesy on our part that they did not make representations earlier than they did.
However, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have indeed had constructive discussions today. It is my understanding that we are all of one mind, in the House and beyond, which is good news. I confirm that I accept the two amendments that we have discussed. I have no difficulty with that.
The regulations are a particularly important aspect of the Bill. Of course, the Bill as drafted ensures that traffic regulation for large events such as the tour de France can take place without fear of challenge. It does not seek to amend the position of smaller events, which are dealt with under other powers. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish knows, new clause 16B limits the effect of the orders to three days, and states that they cannot be used more than once in any calendar year. I hope that he is reassured.
Consultation is absolutely central to this method of legislating, not only for the tour de France but for other events. The fact that we were delighted to accept the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to promote the Bill does not mean that we are sidestepping our responsibilities. It was the quickest and surest way of getting a narrow aspect of legislation on to the statute book. I understand what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, but the most important issue to be covered by the Bill is consultation. As I said on Second Reading, I am minded to require a fairly lengthy period of consultation.
The Bill covers large-scale events, which will be planned well in advance, and early consultation is essential. There are a number of ways in which traffic authorities may be required to give notice of events. We should bear it in mind that it is not the traffic authorities—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he too is going too wide of the money order.

Mr. Key: Let me accept your wise guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall simply say that of course I take the point about the importance of notification of consultation.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has kindly offered the transport supplementary grant for the county of Derbyshire, as well as the motorway widening money and the other trunk road money from his constituency and county. I shall seriously consider the offer. It would be of enormous benefit, and I am grateful to him for his offer.

Ms Walley: rose—

Mr. Key: I gladly give way.

Ms Walley: In relation to the money resolution, is the Minister not aware, as we are, from having read the annual report of the Department of Transport which has just been published, that the amount of money from central Government which is granted to local authorities such as Derbyshire will be cut substantially in future years?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members on both Front Benches that that is beyond the scope of the money resolution?

Mr. Key: I am ever grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it means that I am deprived of the opportunity to say how much more money I look forward to saving in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bolsover, but I shall not go into that now.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Key: I am delighted to give way.

Mr. Skinner: Just to ensure that it is correct, I am talking about money for widening the M1 between junctions 28 and 32. It has nothing to do with other moneys for trunk roads. Get it correct: Ministers should speak the truth.

Mr. Key: It is a question of clarification—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Ministers must also be relevant.

Mr. Key: I always try to be relevant, and I shall seek to reply to the hon. Gentleman in a relevant way by saying that I note his kind and generous offer of giving up motorway widening schemes in his constituency. I am sure that his constituents will be grateful to him for the effect that that will have on his local economy.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate the Minister's assurances, but may I take him back to the issue of the Rights of Way Review Committee?
If the Department of the Environment has any proposals which deal with footpaths, it refers them to that committee at the beginning of consultation. The Department of Transport does not seem to realise that highway matters also cover footpaths.
It would be simple to stress to the officials in the Department that they will refer those matters to the Rights of Way Review Committee at the beginning, rather than

when they find out that some mischief is afoot. That would save the Government considerable expenditure and time in chasing around trying to get it right at this late stage.

Mr. Key: There is absolutely no confusion. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a division of responsibility on rights of way as access to the countryside between the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. The definition of a road and of a highway, with which we are concerned, is one thing, but a byway open to all traffic or a bridleway is a different issue. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was going to go down the path of consultation, but I was reprimanded from the Chair, so perhaps we can discuss it at another time.
I am grateful to the House for listening so carefully to the importance of the money resolution. It is a modest measure, which, as I said, is about transferring funds which may be necessary as different authorities are asked to manage traffic for events which are not sponsored by those traffic authorities but for which they nevertheless have a responsibility for the management of traffic. That is about the sum of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham did a grand job of lobbying on behalf of his constituents for the Haltwhistle bypass. However, that had nothing to do with the issue before us. That bypass was in the roads programme some 20 years ago, long before he was the Member for Hexham. I hope that, in 20 years' time, my hon. Friend will be remembered not only as the Member for the Haltwhistle bypass, but as the Member for the tour de France as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traftic Regulation (Special Events) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable Out of such money under any other Act.

Mr. J. S. Craig (Ex-gratia Claim)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the experience suffered by my constituent Mr. John Craig in seeking custody of his son. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here to reply to the debate and I look forward to his response with great interest.
There are a number of questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction. That is why over the next 10 minutes I shall press especially strongly the case that Mr. Craig has put to me. I hope that I shall receive satisfactory answers at the end of the debate.
The breakdown of any marriage and the pain it causes to the parties involved, especially the children, must be matters for regret. Unfortunately, parents who have divorced cannot always agree which of them should retain custody of their children. Decisions on custody matters often have to be taken by the courts after hearing the parties involved, and on the basis of expert advice.
The tragedy is that elementary failures in procedure by Norwich county court and the court welfare service prevented Mr. Craig from securing a proper hearing at all, and have left him seriously out of pocket.
Mr. Craig's case was originally straightforward. In February 1992, he obtained better rights of access to his son, who had remained with his former wife. At his solicitor's request, a court welfare officer, Mrs. Tanner, was appointed to compile a social inquiry report on Mr. Craig's son. A full hearing for Mr. Craig's claim for custody of his son was set for Friday 22 January 1993 in Norwich county court. Mr. Craig's solicitors briefed a barrister, Mrs. Margaret Gee, to represent him. Mr. Craig had to meet the costs of his barrister and solicitor himself, while his former wife was legally aided.
I must make one point absolutely clear at this stage. Mr. Craig's solicitors, Howard Pollock and Webb, told the chief clerk of Norwich county court that it would be
a fully contested action which would occupy the Court for the entirety of the day".
Mr. Craig's counsel, Mrs. Gee, took the view that the case would require a full day, and the barrister representing Mr. Craig's ex-wife, Mr. Wardlow, apparently thought that it would take a day and a half. There can have been no doubt about the length of time that the lawyers expected the case to take, and that was known to the court before proceedings began.
There were two judges hearing civil cases in Norwich on 21 and 22 January 1993. Judge Head and Judge Mellor had cases estimated to last one day listed for 21 January. They were each expected to hear a further one-day case the following day, and one of those was Mr. Craig's. Unfortunately, it became clear that Judge Head's case would overrun 21 January, so he would not be available on 22 January.
Judge Mellor was approached by the listing officer on 21 January about the problem, and he took the view that he could deal with both the cases due to be heard on 22 January himself. Unfortunately, his original case was not

concluded until after 11 am on 22 January. That meant that the case before Mr. Craig's, despite its extremely brief settlement, was not concluded until midday.
Judge Mellor then saw counsel in Mr. Craig's case. Mrs. Gee and Mr. Wardlow, the two barristers involved, applied to the judge for an adjournment to a later date. Both agreed that, because of the delay that had already occurred, the case could not be fitted in to that day's proceedings. Judge Mellor could not sit on the following Monday, and Mr. Wardlow would not be available then either. New dates were therefore agreed—18 and 19 March. Mrs. Tanner, the court welfare officer, was present in the listing officer's room when the new dates were set and agreed, and she agreed that she would be able to attend then to give her report.
That may all appear complex, but it is important that the facts be set out exactly as they have been presented to me in answer to my inquiries. The barristers and solicitors in the case had made it clear that it would not be possible to conclude the case that day, and that was known to the judge and to the listing officer. That is what makes what happened next, and the explanations given for it, so hard to believe.
The outstanding case before Judge Mellor was settled very rapidly and the listing officer, Mr. Crane, tried to contact the two counsel in Mr. Craig's case to reinstate it. Unfortunately, Mr. Craig and his representatives had left the court, so Mr. Crane could speak only to Mr. Wardlow, who declined to agree because an adjournment had already been granted and the other party's representatives had left. Attempts to use the Tannoy system to contact them failed.
At this stage, I want to be absolutely clear on two points relating to the events in question. The first is that Judge Mellor granted the adjournment. It has subsequently been claimed that he had predicted that the other case would be rapidly compromised. Mr. Crane, the listings officer, argued that on 18 March.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department referred, in his letter to me on 16 July, to the judge's belief that he would be able to deal with both this case and that of Mr. Craig on 22 January. If Judge Mellor had believed that when counsel appeared before him on 22 January, he would not have granted an adjournment of the case at all. Up to two hours of the court's working day of five and a half hours had already been lost.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): Will my hon. Friend accept it from me that Judge Mellor's decision to take the two cases on the Friday was made on the Thursday before he realised that his own case would overrun?

Mr. Thompson: I shall pursue my argument to its conclusion and then possibly respond later to what my hon. Friend said. The important point in this case is that the information that I have received as Mr. Craig's Member of Parliament has been highly confusing. The responsibility lies with my hon. Friend to establish the facts. I can only operate on the facts and the understanding that I have been given.
Mr. Crane knew that a full day was needed, yet still tried to argue that the case could have started, even though it could not finish. Indeed, he went further. He claimed that Judge Mellor believed that the court had been misled by a premature application for an adjournment. No one reading


the evidence from the two firms of solicitors and counsel about the likely length of the case could believe that. The explanations offered by the court administration lacked basic credibility.
The failure to hear Mr. Craig's case on 22 January cost him £1,000 plus value added tax in fees to his counsel, apart from his solicitor's bill. Worse still was to follow for him. The hearing on 18 March began on time. Unfortunately, the court welfare officer was absent, despite her commitment to attend given on 22 January. Inquiries to the probation service revealed that Mrs. Tanner was on holiday in Australia for four weeks. It was only on 13 May that a copy of a letter from her dated 29 January announcing her unavailability was provided to the clerk of the court. Mr. Craig had become liable for a further bill of £500 plus VAT to his counsel without the case proceeding any further at all.
The case was reallocated to dates in August 1993. However, because of the delay in hearing the case, Mr. Craig was advised to abandon his claim for custody and seek better rights of access. He was obliged to accept that advice. The courts are understandably reluctant to remove children from one parent's custody when they have been settled for a lengthy period.
Serious questions arise from this case. First, there is the failure of the listing officer to contact Mr. Craig's solicitors on 22 January. That is particularly inexcusable as Howard, Pollok and Webb are a local firm which was already known to the listing officer at Norwich county court. I must stress that, despite that fact, absolutely no attempt was made to phone or fax them on 22 January.
Secondly, there is the delay in responding to the complaints of those solicitors. It took the listing officer six weeks to respond to their initial letter of 2 February complaining about the proceedings in January. His explanation of events then was not credible. Moreover, Mr. Crane declined to refer any of those initial matters to the court administrator's office. Clearly, that was obstructive, and only when pressed again did he consent to do so.
Finally, there is the matter of a letter of 29 January from Mrs. Tanner. I have no means of knowing whether it was sent by the probation service to Norwich county court at that time. If it was sent, what happened to it? Someone must have lost it. What explanation is there for the fact that. if the clerk of the court received a copy on 13 May, my hon. Friend's Department did not know of it on 18 May when it wrote to my constituent's solicitors refusing to pay compensation? Which officer of the court failed to inform my hon. Friend of the letter's existence before he wrote to me on 16 July again declining to accept liability for the administrative errors that had occurred?
How was it that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), a Minister of State, Home Office, was able to write to me on 23 August last year informing me of the letter's existence, but no acknowledgement of its existence was given from Lord Chancellor's Department before 12 November?
One or more officers of Norwich county court failed to tell the full story. I have no doubt that it was convenient for the county court administrators to be able to blame the probation service for not having informed the court that Mrs. Tanner would be unavailable in March. To ordinary people, it looks like a cover-up.
Is not the truth that the county court officers at Norwich have been more than economical with the truth because of their blunders?
I said that I felt strongly about the way in which my constituent has been treated, and I am trying to get that across during the debate. The most alarming feature is that no one was willing to accept responsibility for the mistakes that occurred. Norwich county court's listings officer has blamed the counsel in the case for the failure to hear it on 22 January. That is not acceptable or credible, for the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor's Department to Mr. Craig's solicitors in May 1993. The court must rely on the estimates of time given by the parties' solicitors—in this case, one full day.
It is on the basis of the fallacious information supplied by the listings officer that compensation has been refused by the Lord Chancellor's Department to Mr. Craig. I hope that my hon. Friend will announce that there has been a change of heart tonight. I am equally concerned that neither the Home Office nor the Lord Chancellor's Department accepts responsibility for the failure to conclude the proceedings in March 1993.
It is not good enough to accept that Mrs. Tanner's letter was sent to Norwich county court, and that no blame therefore falls on Norfolk probation service. If it was sent, Norwich county court should have made the parties to the case aware of it. If the explanation that I received from the Home Office is right, Mr. Craig has been failed by the county court's administrators. The county court appears to prefer to rely on a claim that it did not receive the letter at all. We can all recognise the buck-passing here, which is occurring on a grand scale.
Mr. Craig should have had justice in the courts—instead, he got a shabby deal. All he has received has been a litany of incredible excuses. I hope that tonight he will receive a proper apology, a full explanation and the overdue compensation which he deserves. I look forward to receiving a positive response from my hon. Friend and, once again, I am grateful to him for hearing me out.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels. He has been my hon. Friend for 11 years, and my personal friend for 20 years. I can well understand also the distress that his constituent Mr. Craig feels at the adjournment on two occasions of his application for custody of his son. As a result, he has suffered not only a delay in resolving an extremely sensitive and important family issue, but the wasted legal costs of the adjourned hearings.
My Department is always prepared to consider any reasonable request for payment for such costs. However, there is an extremely important principle to consider whenever requests for payments from public funds are made. That is the duty that I have to the taxpayer to ensure that the financial loss from which payment is sought has genuinely arisen as a result of errors made by departmental staff. In this instance, I do not consider that to be the case.
To explain why, I shall outline the circumstances that led to the adjournment of each hearing, and the reasons for the refusal of Mr. Craig's claim in each case. I beg the forgiveness of the small audience present, and that of the


perhaps larger readership tomorrow, if there is good deal of overlap between what I have to say and what my hon. Friend said.
The first hearing took place at Norwich county court on 22 January 1993. As my hon. Friend said, two judges were hearing civil matters at the court that week, Judge Head and Judge Mellor. On the day before Mr. Craig's hearing, each judge had a single case in his list for which the parties had given a time estimate of one day. On 22 January, two one-day cases were listed, one of which was Mr. Craig's. Thus, there was every reason to suppose that Mr. Craig's case would be heard.
Unfortunately, it became clear during the preceding day, the Thursday, that the case being heard by Judge Head would considerably overrun. That meant that Judge Head would be unable to hear either of the two cases listed for 22 January. On Thursday 21 January, the court listing officer, Mr. Crane, consulted Judge Mellor, who examined the files and decided that he would be able to hear both cases. He instructed that the other case be listed before Mr. Craig's case, as he believed that it was likely to settle.
In the event, Judge Mellor's case of 21 January overran until 11.15 am on 22 January. Then counsel in Mr. Craig's case requested an adjournment, which was granted. Judge Mellor began to hear the other outstanding case, which reached' settlement within a few minutes. The listing officer made urgent attempts to locate Mr. Craig and his representatives to see whether they wanted the judge to hear the case after all, but they had already left. The listing officer was right to do that. Mr. Craig's solicitors wrote to the court on 2 February complaining that the list for 22 January had been overloaded. The listing officer did not reply to that letter until 18 March. I apologise to my hon. Friend for that delay, which was clearly unacceptable.
My hon. Friend doubts the version of events given in the listing officer's letter. I agree that the letter was confusing and that the tone in which it was written was unfortunate. Specifically, the listing officer's initial refusal to refer the matter to the courts administrator's office, as requested, was clearly wrong. For that, too, I apologise. However, the fact remains that Judge Mellor instructed the listing officer on 21 January to list both cases before him on 22 January, and he did so.
There are two important principles here. First, in preparing lists, courts have to rely on the time estimates given by the parties. If the estimate proves to be inaccurate, that is not the fault of the court. The president of the family division has recently issued a direction which emphasises the responsibilities of the parties in that matter.
Secondly, there is the fundamental principle of judicial independence. As my hon. Friend will know, the judiciary is entirely independent of Government. That means that neither I nor any of my officials can intervene in individual cases or seek to question or influence judicial decisions. Listing is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The judge decides the list; the listing officer does his bidding. No blame can be attached to the court for its actions on 22 January.
The second hearing of 18 March 1993 was fixed when the hearing of 22 January was adjourned. The court welfare officer involved in the case was present on 22 January, as my hon. Friend said, and confirmed that she could attend

on 18 March. However, on 18 March the court welfare officer failed to appear. The judge asked where she was and was told that she was in Australia. The judge then adjourned that hearing.
The court subsequently asked for an explanation from the local court welfare service, which, as my hon. Friend knows, comes under the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The service wrote to the court on 13 May enclosing a copy of a letter from the court welfare officer to the court dated 29 January, in which she said that she would not be able to attend the hearing. There was no record that the original letter had been received by the court. Subsequent exhaustive searches have failed to produce any evidence that it was ever received.
Regrettably, some confusion arose in the course of my correspondence with my hon. Friend about the case, because court staff did not initially tell officials at the Lord Chancellor's Department's headquarters of the court's correspondence with the court welfare service following the second hearing. I apologise for that error. My hon. Friend asked to be told who it was made by. It was made by the deputy chief clerk in the absence of the chief clerk. However, I am satisfied that that was an unfortunate oversight by the court, and that there was no intention to mislead Mr. Craig.
As I have said, there is no evidence that the court welfare officer's letter was received by the court before the hearing on 18 March. The court cannot be expected to have taken action on a letter that it did not receive. In those circumstances, the court cannot be held to be at fault and thus there can be no payment.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: On the subject of payment, does my hon. Friend accept—I am sure that he does—that the delays that we have debated tonight have cost my constituent, Mr. Craig, a considerable sum of money? I specified the approximate sums in my speech. Therefore, in spite of the technicalities, my constituent has lost money, and he has a case in natural justice. Will my hon. Friend respond to that argument?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that Mr. Craig has lost money. I think that the whole tenor of my remarks has been to concede that. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department is bound by law. There are only certain circumstances in which payments can be made. There must be demonstrable administrative error that gives rise to the consequential loss. It is my Department's case that there is no demonstrable administrative error causing the loss.
I have also indicated to my hon. Friend, without seeking to be at all personally critical of the listing process, that the listing process is not administrative but judicial, and it is independent of Government and independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
As I have said, there is no evidence that the court welfare officer's letter was received by the court before the hearing on 18 March. The court cannot be expected to have taken action on a letter which it did not receive. In those circumstances—at the risk of saying it twice—the court cannot be held to be at fault and thus there can be no payment.
I sympathise with Mr. Craig in his misfortune and the financial loss that he has suffered. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be proper for


me to authorise payment from public funds when that loss was not caused by administrative errors on the part of my staff.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.